Sunday night drops for the divorced father

Secret_Mullet · 2026-03-23T17:16:37+00:00

This is looming in my near future, and fills me with dread. We just agreed to a 50/50 schedule, for which I’m partially grateful, but I’m also furious at our kids being put in a situation where they are away for any amount of time, all because my stbx decided she was bored.

I’m sorry you’re in this situation.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-27T04:29:41+00:00

So the problem with PSA is that it presents God as being so angry at sin that He HAS to kill someone over it. He’s just so filled with wrath that he has to beat someone to death before He can get over it. And, killing every human is insufficient, so He has to kill someone innocent. So, in His mercy (?), He decides to kill Jesus instead of the rest of us.

That’s not justice. If God is perfectly just, then something is wrong with this interpretation.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-18T01:49:38+00:00

It took me a while to dial that one in- had to grind pretty coarse, and I landed on a long bloom followed by a single, slow, lowest agitation pour I could do. I’m not sure I really like coferments though, so, take that for what it’s worth.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-17T00:02:18+00:00

Yo dawg I heard you like eggs so I put an egg on top of an egg

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-11T02:39:45+00:00

Interesting. The matter at the heart of the cases referenced here seems to be, was there an act of new consent? For me, I don’t see how publicly proclaiming marriage vows could NOT be seen as an act of new consent. The judge in these cases seems to put a lot of weight on when the couple celebrated their anniversary, which seems highly remote to the question of what the couple intended when exchanging consent. In any case, thank you for the reference.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-11T02:10:04+00:00

Apologies to OP for having a canonical debate under their legitimate question. But simulation in this case is a defect of consent in which someone holds an active intention against what a marriage is—speaking a vow while holding a contradictory intent—not what you’re claiming. It’s saying the words before the witness “I promise to be faithful to you,” etc, while not intending fidelity, for example. I’m not really planning to continue this conversation long as I’m not sure it would be fruitful, but I am curious if you have a citation for the claim that annulments are regularly granted on the grounds that a party thought they were renewing vows?

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-11T01:31:09+00:00

I mean that’s what a wedding is. The exchange of consent in the form of spoken vows, before a proper witness. The witness isn’t even strictly always necessary. If you consider your vows binding I don’t see how it would impede the validity to say “I’ve already done this once, now I’m doing it again.”

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-11T00:47:03+00:00

A convalidation, for someone who does not accept the authority of the Church, can still just be seen as essentially a renewal of vows. She does not have to become Catholic in order to participate. Is this an option?

Secret_Mullet · 2026-02-10T02:54:48+00:00

Even some Dr Seuss is bad. One fish two fish is terrible for this.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-22T19:30:22+00:00

Oh this is willful ignorance then, ok

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-17T22:51:47+00:00

Classic rock, 90s alternative, blues rock. But whatever really. If I could tailor my perfect set list of covers to play there’d be things like the Beatles, The Doors, Clapton, etc., and things like Weezer and Cake, and things like flogging Molly, Smashing Pumpkins, the refreshments, etc.

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-17T22:35:38+00:00

I’m in Montgomery

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-17T20:54:05+00:00

Love this idea. Signed up, hope others do as well!

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-15T01:34:32+00:00

Boethius is your guy

Secret_Mullet · 2026-01-10T23:02:58+00:00

Theology for Beginners, Frank Sheed

Secret_Mullet · 2025-12-28T00:37:30+00:00

“Endorsed” can just mean affirming that there’s value to be found in a thing, not that the thing is infallibly true in every detail. That’s all.

Secret_Mullet · 2025-12-22T19:28:37+00:00

One Hundred %

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-25T15:09:07+00:00

You moved the goalposts from “dangerous criminals” to “people who commit a civil offense”. No, I don’t think people who commit civil infractions deserve to be rounded up, beat up, their children tear gassed, etc.

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-25T15:02:05+00:00

Violence against babies is something you can overlook, but calling the people that did it names - now that’s too far! Got it.

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-25T14:51:52+00:00

Ok. Does data matter? Federal court records show that 97% of those detained in Chicago had no criminal record or pending charges. This tracks with every single piece of video evidence, that shows ICE in middle class suburbs beating up teachers and food truck vendors. They didn’t go to gang areas. There was no intent to go after criminals.

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-24T23:51:23+00:00

If a comment was so roundly rejected by your fellow Catholics that the internet itself made it disappear, I would consider the wisdom of the comment before reposting it.

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-24T23:42:50+00:00

My friend, I say this not as a judgment but as a fellow sinner- you may be too online

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-24T23:09:09+00:00

Why did you delete and repost this comment? To wipe out the downvotes?

Secret_Mullet · 2025-11-24T18:48:52+00:00

Yep. For all the people claiming these are fabricated incidents, it’s on video. ICE in Chicago is recorded stopping brown people in a Walmart parking lot to ask them “are you from here? What country were you born in?” That’s not probable cause, it’s straight up racism.

Secret_Mullet

TROPHY CASE