You are building a straw man here that is in no way analogous to the situation at hand.
The law exists for our benefit
Sorry but I simply can not see where this aspect of the law provides a benefit to anybody. The bishop did a good job as a Canon Lawyer but an abyssmally bad job as a pastor.
disobeying it is indecent and uncharitable, not the other way around.
Are you seriously saying that allowing a paraplegic man and his fiance to marry would be indecent and uncharitable? And you wonder why I would compare that attitude to the Pharisees?
Not in the slightest.
In both cases we have an individual who is physically incapacitated from being able to possess a certain status.
In both cases we have a situation in which if the status was conferred on the physically incapacitated individual regardless of their disqualification - well then the status itself becomes meaningless and anyone can have it regardless of qualification.
If someone who cannot possibly see the road in front of him is given carte blanche to drive, then there is no reason why we can't give a five year old a driver's license as well. In fact, there are no reasons to have a driver's license in the first place since we are now giving them out to people who are completely incapable of driving. The purpose of the drivers' license in the first place was to include only people who were actually able to drive - now there is no reason to have drivers licenses at all.
Likewise, if we bestow marriage on a relationship between two people who are incapable of naturally consummating the marriage let alone procreating through it, then there is no reason to have marriage in the first place. Any relationship of any kind can be declared a marriage, obviating the need for marriage in the first place.
Sorry but I simply can not see where this aspect of the law provides a benefit to anybody.
Marriage has a purpose. When the purposes of marriage (union and procreation) are fulfilled by married people, the whole community benefits. When marriage is stripped of its purpose and becomes only a name, then the entire sacrament is cheapened.
The bishop did a good job as a Canon Lawyer but an abyssmally bad job as a pastor.
I see. As a pastor, he should have lied to these people.
Are you seriously saying that allowing a paraplegic man and his fiance to marry would be indecent and uncharitable?
It isn't a question of "allowing." They are incapable of being married. It would be indecent and uncharitable to deceive them into believing that they could be validly married.
That would not only be a disservice to them, but also a disservice to everyone who is validly married by telling them that the obligations and purposes of marriage that they were instructed in and asked to live by were only suggestions and opinions.
And you wonder why I would compare that attitude to the Pharisees?
Indeed I do.
Apparently you are under the impression that "pharisaical" means "following the rules."
It doesn't.