Marriage Crisis and the Code of Canon Law. Rome. Sept. 26, 2015

• Report rights infringement
• published: 14 Dec 2015
• views: 1139

Bai Macfarlane, Director of Mary's Advocates, presents “What God Has Joined Together”: The Current Marriage Crisis in the Light of the Original Creation and the Code of Canon Law. Follow transcript: www.marysadvocates.org/syllabus/150926_Bai_talk.pdf For footnotes, published for delegates at Bishops Synod, see full paper: http://www.marysadvocates.org/syllabus/150926_Bai_Paper.pdf Hosted by and Presented for Kolbe Center for Creation and Human Life International Rome http://romansymposium.com/ ACCOMPANYING NOTES • The civil forum judge purports to relieve a Catholic of his obligation to maintain the common conjugal life, but the civil judge has no independent competence to do so. Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law (cf. c. 1059 CIC). • In other canons, the phrase “can permit” applies in situations where the normal lawful situation is defined, and special permission is required for a party to veer outside of the norm. For example, canon 1118 §2 shows that the bishop can grant permission for marriage to be celebrated someplace other than the parish church. Just because the canon says “can permit,” it does not mean that a Catholic, on his own authority can marry in any place he chooses. Canon 1692 §2 shows the bishop “can grant permission” for a Catholic to approach the civil forum. Just because a bishop “can permit” a Catholic to initiate a divorce, does not mean that any Catholic on his own authority, can legitimately do so. Consider an example; when a Catholic’s neighbor owns a 7- passenger minivan, the owner “can give permission” to the Catholic to borrow the minivan for a family vacation. But this does not mean that the Catholic can decide on his own authority to just take the minivan for a week. • The normal lawful situation for couples is defined in Canon 104 and 1151. “Spouses are to have a common domicile or quasi-domicile; by reason of legitimate separation or some other just cause, both can have their own domicile or quasi-domicile.” ... “Spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.” A Catholic can only legitimately separate on his own authority for two reasons: adultery and danger in delay (cf. cc. 1152 §3, 1153 §1). Separation is a substantively different occurrence than civil divorce. Just because a Catholic can legitimately separate on his own authority does not mean he can initiate a civil divorce on his own authority. • Civil divorce is legally and factually known to the relatives, friends, and faith community of those involved. Separation (regardless of whether it is accompanied by a civil divorce) is subject to the power of governance of the Church. Therefore, a Catholic should not exercise on his own behalf the power of ecclesiastical governance, or the pastoral and administrative power of the bishop. • Separation of spouses involves the public good and requires the involvement of the Promoter of Justice (cf. c. 1696 CIC). If a Catholic initiates a civil divorce without the bishop’s permission, there is no mechanism to insure the required involvement of the ecclesiastic authority to promote justice and defend the public good, particularly the defense of the rights of the children and an innocent spouse. • When deciding whether or not to grant permission for a Catholic to initiate a civil divorce, the bishop is supposed to consider the situation “in light of their particular circumstances,” or “after having weighed the special circumstances” perpensis peculiaribus adiunctis, (cf. c, 1692 §2c CIC). This implies that the bishop or his mandated delegate must learn about the special or particular circumstances of any Catholic that plans to file for civil divorce. The bishop would never learn about the special or particular circumstances of a family, if a Catholic were not required to consult with the bishop before initiating a civil divorce. I am questioning whether a conjunction was erroneously published as “or” vel, when it should be “and” et, in canon 1692 §2. . . . The mere fact that one forum has no arranged acceptance of the Church’s teaching and law, seems a ridiculous basis for granting permission for all Catholics to go to the said forum for instruction and implementation of said forum’s plan. For example, consider Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices. The Church’s canon law regarding abortion has no effect on the advice given by Planned Parenthood. If the Church were to give permission for a Catholic to approach Planned Parenthood for that reason alone, the Church would tacitly be condoning abortion.