Posted on 02/03/2006 1:16:40 PM PST by NYer
Like many people, I was disturbed by news of Michael Schiavo’s recent wedding to his fiancée Jody Centonze. As Gudrun Schultz reported on Life Site News, “Michael Schiavo, who had his disabled wife Terri killed last March by refusing her food and water, was re-married last Saturday in the Roman Catholic Church of Espiritu Santo in Florida. Schiavo married Jodi Centonze. He had two children with her during the years he worked towards achieving Terri’s death.”
Yes, you read that right. After bringing about the death of his first wife, a Catholic church allowed Michael to attempt a second marriage within its sacred confines. The report also states: “The Catholic Church of Espiritu Santo, where Michael Schiavo’s second marriage took place, is in Bishop Lynch’s diocese of St. Petersburg.” Being a canon lawyer, I note that this is not the first time Bishop Lynch’s interpretation of canon law has been at odds with that of the Holy See. Nevertheless, I remember that we as lay folk have a duty to pray for our pastors.
Michael Schiavo’s wedding caused quite a stir among Catholic bloggers. One news report noted that there was no homily at the wedding. “The priest offered no homily?” replied Fr. Rob Johansen, a young priest who happens to be a close friend of Terri’s family. “Well, what could the priest say? Don't kill this one, Michael?”
One of Mark Shea’s readers was a little more succinct: “I too, am disgusted and outraged.” I sympathize with this fellow, however, I find myself too disgusted to be outraged.
Like my colleague Dr. Ed Peters, I wonder about the validity of Michael and Jody’s marriage. Canon 1090 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is clear: “One who, with a view to entering marriage with a particular person, has killed that person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse, invalidly attempts this marriage.”
Canon 1090's second paragraph is similarly clear: “They also invalidly attempt marriage with each other who, by mutual physical or moral action, brought about the death of either’s spouse.” Thus canon 1090 defines what canonists call the marriage impediment of crime (or crimen).
Setting aside the civil legalities, or the fact he carried out his actions with the blessing of the state, can anyone dispute that Michael Schiavo brought about his wife Terri’s death with the full intention of marrying Jody? After all, throughout his court battles with Terri’s parents Jody was Michael’s fiancée, the mother of his two children and the object of his extra-marital engagement.
Can anyone deny that Jody colluded, at least morally, in this action? This is not a matter of gossip, hearsay or idle speculation. Rather it is a well-documented incident that played out before millions of people for several years. As such, it is a matter of public record.
Thus permission for Michael and Jody’s marriage would have had to come from the Holy See. Unlike most other impediments to marriage, only the Holy See can dispense from the impediment of crime (canon 1078 §2.2). Without this dispensation, the Church would consider such a marriage invalid under normal circumstances. Was such a dispensation sought and obtained from the Holy See?
I do not know with certitude, but I have my personal suspicions. The Holy See usually requires some expression of remorse before even considering a dispensation from crimen. After all, the Church wishes to avoid a repeat incident. And when the case is this public, the Church will often require that the expression of remorse be public.
Neither party appears to have publicly expressed remorse. If they have, the media failed to pick it up. This would include the pro-life media that almost always rejoices over that type of conversion story. Yet given Michael’s recent founding of a political action committee — one dedicated to defeating politicians who attempted to save his former spouse’s life — I think we can safely assume that Michael publicly stands by his actions in bringing about her death. In this light, Michael’s second Catholic wedding is a scandal to Christ’s faithful, if indeed the Church recognizes it as valid.
Rather than stand for this scandal, Catholics should write Francis Cardinal Arinze at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments and ask for an investigation into this matter. Here is His Eminence’s address:
Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni
Piazza Pio XII, 10
00120 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO, Europe
Perhaps someone can ping the Terri Schiavo list. Thank you!
While I agree that this is ridiculous, how is it any different than having a marriage anulled? Are they not allowing those previously married to get married again?
Make that more than morally colluded. She and her mother blocked Terri's family from entering her room and had the gall to sit death watch at her bedside. No, the happy couple will not part at death since they'll both be headed the same direction for eternity.
You cannot get an anulmant on account of having killed someone.
Interesting question the title raises.
Do Catholics profess that we are marred in the Kingdom?
You missed my point.
Hardly there are bibical reason for allowing remarriage in certain instances.
Murder isn't one of them.
Interesting point. I didn't read the title that way but it could be interpreted to mean just that.
Certainly there is: adultry. What else?
The word in greek isn't adultry it's pornea and it means sexual immorality. There's a wealth of things which could constitute that. In fact Christ didn't even use the common greek word for adultry, which is a different word, he quite specifically used pornea.
This situation is different, as Michael and Terri's marriage has been dissolved through her death. Michael is a widower and can marry again according to the Church. The issue is, can he specifically marry Jody in light of the fact that it can be construed that he killed Terri in order to marry Jody.
He is certainly free to marry anyone else.
The issue for a canon lawyer is, I think, as follows. The state does not consider Terri's death a crime. I am of the opinion that Michael did commit a crime, or a series of crimes, that resulted in her death, whatever the legal term is for the method he employed. Many in the Church are of the same opinion. But -- here's the rub -- is the Church prepared to formally and canonically view Michael's actions as a crime even though the secular courts do not?
On Orthodox forums I've seen this debated, and there's a pretty even split as to whether clergy bleieve or disbeleive we are and the scriptural evidence isn't conclusive either. I rather hope we do.
But where does 'pornea' even begin to include where someone just gets tired of their spouse and wants a divorce? That is the situation that I often see for anullments here.
Bump and ping for the Terri List.
Here's the info you were seeking, Aliska. Thanks, NYer!
So, I guess under Canon Law, their marriage isn't exactly legal? If he had been a decent human being, the Church would have granted him an anullment, allowing him to "find another spouse, marry, and have children". Not the other way around.
I don't believe so. I think the teaching goes something like this: Marriage is an institution and a sacrament that has one primary purpose: children. Since the primary purpose and the secondary purposes are satisfied or no longer necessary in heaven, marriage is no longer necessary.
It's been a while since I looked in to this so I may be wrong. If any other RC has additional info, I'd be happy to correct my errors.
That is an abuse of the annulment process. Yes, it does go on.
SD
I always thought the old 'whose wife is she in the resurrection?' question settled that issue, but I'm willing to concede the possibility of it not being completely conclusive. However, I find it hard to believe that Paul would have only 'encouraged' older widows to remain unmarried and for younger widows to remarry if this were the case.
One whose spouse dies can remarry without any need for an anullment.
One who brings about the death of their spouse in order to marry another is forbidden by Church law to marry.
It's not really the same thing at all.
SD
Thanks Dave, as always, for a simple, honest answer. I appreciate it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.