Posted on 02/03/2006 1:16:40 PM PST by NYer
It is most doubtful they had permission from the Holy See to marry and probably Rome was not aware of it. Hopefully, they are aware now and something must be done about it.
It's generally recognized that Christ spoke predominatly aromaic but sometimes hebrew, and highly probably ocassionally also greek or latin. Many passages in the New Testament quote verbatum the Septuagint (as well as books only present in the Septuagint not present in earlier Hebrew version) which was the greek-language version of Jewish scripture in use at the time.
Pornea doesn't cover getting tired of your spouse, but in today's age where folks expirment with a lot of things, it's probably not incredibly difficult to make a case for sexual immorality should one tire of their spouse.
Wow! I was not aware that the rules were that specific. Thanks again.
And God is not mocked ... those who abuse the process may very well find that, in the long run, it wasn't worth it.
The canons are given in the article:
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).
When you've been around for a few millennia, you tend to cover all the bases. If death dissolves the marriage bond, how long do you think it took someone to figure out he could kill his wife to marry a new one? Not very long, I bet.
SD
Thanks for the cite. I could have looked it up. It is crystal clear to me; they can spin it any way they want.
Moral law should always and everywhere trump civil law. The only way through this would be sincere, public penance and permission of the Holy See. If the latter did happen to given, it is still a scandal to me at this juncture. It is worse than questionable annulments.
Any other denomination with the exception of perhaps the Orthodox, would have had someone willing to marry them, That a Catholic church publicly flouted canon law in such a high-profile, egregious manner is shocking. Just because it is not my diocese does not make any difference to me; it is scandalous nonetheless.
I'm pretty sure this was addressed by Paul, who indicated that there is no "marriage" in heaven. Think about the Catholic interpretation of the meaning of marriage and I think you can deduce that it's not the type of relationship we would be pursuing in a spiritual form! That's not to say that souls are not reunited in love after death. Just not in "marriage" which is an earthly institution to unite the flesh of two people.
Think this reading from Paul was in a homily in the past couple of months...
BTW - disgusted that this couple found a priest who was willing to marry them in the Church.
Unfortunately, I have done nothing to alert Rome to this, however I am pretty confident they already know. What's the point of having rules, if everyone gets to break them?
That's what I thought, I just couldn't remember for sure. Thanks for the confirmation.
BTW - disgusted that this couple found a priest who was willing to marry them in the Church.
Ditto.
That was a great comment. Best *homily* ever!!
Just thought that you should have a ping to this thread, if you haven't gotten one already.
While Michael and Jodi may think they have *outsmarted* the Catholic Church, or talked someone into performing a marriage *ceremony* for them, I believe that in the end, God will not be mocked. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when that time comes.
I wonder what the marriage tribunal's response would have been, if he had said: "Give me an annulment or I'll just kill her."
The difference is, an annulment declares the the first (apparent) marriage was not binding --- was not, in the eyes of the Church, "marriage" in the sacramental sense of the word --- because of some defect that from the start rendered it non-sacramental. Therefore the parties are free to (civilly) divorce and to remarry somebody else, even though the partner from the null "marriage" is still alive.
In this case, Terri and Michael Schiavo had a valid (sacramental) marriage from the beginnning, but Terri is now dead and Michael is a widower. So the question isn't about the validity of the first marriage. The question is whether a man who brought about the death of his first wife, can re-marry in the Church.
The answer is, canonically, no.
Therefore the priest who conducted the ceremony, and the bishop who permitted it, are pparently in serious violation of Canon Law.
Nor I. Unfortunately, my gut feeling is that the church takes a dim view of complainers. Surely they have been informed by now. As to the point of having rules, I have learned to live with minor infractions depending on the situation, but this goes to the very heart of what the church should be about and sets it apart from all the others.
Actually, one would think premeditated murder would carry the penalty of excommunication. Only abortion does as far as I know.
Some lady who converted the same year I did went to the bishop's meeting about the abuse scandals in the capitol, (is it ol or al?), I'm rusty, of our state. The sound bite has been, "the church is for sinners, we are all sinners." True enough; however the ancient church was very firm about serious violations of moral law; through the centuries I suspect some exceptions were made for wealthy or worldly advantage now and then concerning dispensations; however for all these centuries, the church has run a pretty tight ship overall and paid dearly in a few historical eras.
As I understand it, Canon Law is not meant to cover all crimes, but principally crimes which are not specifically covered by secular law. IIRC, the previous, 1918 Code of Canon Law specifically penalized dueling, because dueling was popular among certain classes at the time (certain German student groups thought having a sabre scar was way cool) AND the secular criminal code did not penalize it, or the supposed penalties were never enforced.
That's why profanation of the Blessed Sacrament will be against canon law, but not armed robbery. Armed robbery is already "adequately" condemned by secular law.
I'm no expert. If anybody can explain things better, please do your duty.
This second paragraph eliminates any doubt as to the validity of their marriage. That a priest (no doubt with the approbation of his ordinary) could flaunt this and proceed with the ceremony is absolutely scandalous. Pete Vere is correct. This should be reported to Cardinal Arinze.
Thank you!
bump for later
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.