Posted on 01/23/2006 2:43:23 PM PST by madprof98
SAFETY HARBOUR, Florida, January 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNew.com) – 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.
Terri Schiavo was killed in March 2005, in spite of her family’s strenuous fight to prevent the removal of her feeding tube and water. Terri was left severely brain damaged after collapsing at age 26. Although medical authorities said she was in an irreversible “vegetative” state, her family maintained that she was able to interact with them, and they sought to have authority for her care transferred to them.
On Saturday, Terri Schiavo’s sister Suzanne Vitadamo spoke out against the Catholic bishops of Florida, saying Terri may not have been killed if the bishops would have supported the fight to protect her life.
Speaking at a “Stand Up for Life” rally in South Carolina, Ms. Vitadamo said if the Florida bishops had stepped forward and denounced what was taking place "there would have been such an enormous outcry of support from parishioners in our diocese and from Catholics around the world that my sister could very well be alive today."
Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, outraged Catholics when he offered his only statement during the 13 days it took Terri to die from dehydration, encouraging her family to reconcile with Michael Schiavo in the name of “peace.”
The Catholic Church of Espiritu Santo, where Michael Schiavo’s second marriage took place, is in Bishop Lynch’s diocese of St. Petersburg.
While the Florida Bishops dismally failed to intervene and speak out in defense of Terri and of the value of all human life, the Vatican issued repeated condemnations of the decision to cause her death.
In four different appeals, Vatican officials sought protection for her life and spoke out against the inhumanity of withholding food and water.
“Without the tube which is providing life-giving hydration and nutrition, Terri Schiavo will die. But it is not that simple. She will die a horrible and cruel death,” wrote Cardinal Renato Martino. “She will not simply die; she will have death inflicted upon her over a number of terrible days, even weeks. How can anyone who claims to speak of the promotion and protection of human rights - of human life - remain silent?”
Suzanne Vitadamo warned listeners at the rally about the implications of Terri’s death for all vulnerable people.
"Our society has shifted to a quality of life mentality and has lost sight of the value (and) sacredness of all human life," Vitadamo said. "We now as a nation are deciding when it is OK or not OK to kill those suffering from disabilities."
Barf alert
where were the bishops,
Canon 386 “The diocesan bishop is bound to present and explain to the faithful the truths of the Faith which are to be believed and applied to moral issues, frequently preaching in person…”
and it's our right to make our voices known;
Can. 212 §3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1381701/posts?page=181
PLEASE don't say that! NEVER, NEVER be embarrassed to be a Catholic! Be embarrassed for people like Lynch and Law and the others, BUT never be embarrassed to be a Catholic. Remember, the Church was founded by Jesus Himself! Don't ever forget that!
I thought Jodi was divorced. How could they have a Catholic ceremony?
This is a post made on another thread regarding the Church's view about this type of situation. Maybe it would be a good idea for the priest and the Bishop to get better educated. Thanks to FReeper PanzerKardinal for providing this information.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1563222/posts?page=87#87
"He's not married. He's a widower."
Caseinpoint was referring to Michael when he WAS married to Terri and living with Jodi, and NOW gets married in the Catholic Church. Caseinpoint can't understand how a priest could perform that "marriage", and I can't understand it, either.
First of all, as others pointed out, the Florida Bishops' basic response to Terri's situation was "Buh-bye, Veggie Girl" --- translated into turgid Ecclesio-garble and modified only at the last moment when they were presumably under pressure from Rome.
Second, the fact that Michael lived for a decade with girlfriend Jodi while Terri was still alive, clearly demonstrates that he does not believe in the kind of fidelity which the Church considers constitutive of the Sacrament of Matrimony. A man who lives in bigamy/adultery for all those years and does not repent, is not capable of making a valid vow, because he manifestly rejects the requirements of the Sacrament.
Third, even in the case of common garden-variety fornication, the priest is supposed to tell the couple to cease and desist, and live separately for a period of time, to underline that marriage is not just an upgrade of a freelance rutting situation. Marriage is sacred and should be started on a "clean" basis.
You sense there's something a little unseemly about the Schiavo-Centonze nuptials? Then you're a better Catholic than Bishop Robert Lynch.
Good post!
One small addition: the only bishop in Florida who spoke out in defense of Terri's life before the Vatican pressure came down was Bishop Galeone of the St. Augustine diocese.
It's a simple answer: Widowers are free to remarry.
I seem to recall a specific prohibition in Church law if the wirdower killed his wife. He may not be validlly married.
Yes that is why I said unless he confessed. I of course would not know if he had- only the priest would. It would have been easy at one time to take for granted that a confession had been made and that grace had been restored to the sinner's soul. But unfortunately too many boldly declare their sins and receive without shame.
**Re-Married in Catholic Church**
Huh? Hope he went to Confession!
I thought, however that he was a member of the Scientology sect.
Schiavo was never officially accused of murder. It seems very likely that he did murder his wife, but the Church has to go by what the justice system says about these things, and Schiavo was never investigated.
Presumably he never will be investigated, since the killer judge in the case allowed the body to be cremated after a coroner approved by the Scientologists had a look at her.
The only real impediment to a church marriage would be if the woman did not get an annulment after her divorce. Presumably she did. Either that or the pastor and bishop never bothered to investigate the matter.
I was thinking Schiavo was Catholic. I still have trouble with them having a church wedding. I think the fact they mocked marriage by living together for so many years while Terri Shindler was still alive. Would be enough reason for any priest or pastor to suggest a simple ceremony by the Justice of the Peace.
I don't know that I've ever seen the exact language of the Church Law, but I doubt that it entirely depends on secular courts determination. Do you have access to Canon Law?
The divorce of Jodi Ann Centonze and Scott W. Blough was recorded 3/29/1989 in Pinellas County.
In the strictest sense, it is true that a widower can remarry, and it is also true that Schiavo didn't actually murder his wife in the legal sense of the word. However, I believe it is also a priest's prerogative not to perform the wedding. But there are enough leftist Culture of Death priests out there who are willing to accomodate this parasite, the priest and Schiavo should be excommunicated.
What sense would it make for a priest to encourage a Catholic to marry OUTSIDE the Church?
Like it or not, the Catholic Church naively believes that Jesus came for sinners.
Maybe your Church is made up of saints.
On what basis?
Is there anything that actually prevents a Catholic marriage under circumstances such as this one? Of course Michael Schaivo was not charged nor convicted of murder, but the Pope himself came out against his actions. Actually, there is quite a bit that prevents Schiavo from marrying in the Catholic Church.
Here's an article written by Canon Law expert Dr. Edward Peters in The Rock magazine.
When two people marry, there arises between them a "bond" of marriage, known in canon law as ligamen (Canon 1085). This marriage bond is what canonically prevents either spouse from marrying someone else for so long as the other spouse is alive, even if the couple has obtained a civil divorce from their marriage. Ligamen is the canonical enforcement of the familiar wedding words "till death do us part" and, with rare exceptions not applicable in a case like this one, only the death of one spouse can free the other from the bond of marriage.
Now, the Church has been around for a long time and she is, in Pope Paul VI's memorable phrase, "an expert in humanity." The Church has seen people try any number of ways around the demands of permanent Christian marriage, including even, the killing of one spouse in order to marry another. But while the death of a spouse, natural or otherwise, certainly ends the bond of the marriage that once existed, if that death was brought about by the surviving spouse, it is quite possible that canon law will step in to prevent the survivor from gaining by the misdeed and attempting another marriage in the Church. It does this by establishing on a killer spouse an impediment to marriage known as crimen (Canon 1090). If you think you see in the Latin word "crimen" an ancestor of our English word "crime", you're right, for both terms are getting at what is, in the eyes of the Church at least, criminal behavior. According to Canon 1090, "One who, with a view to entering marriage with a certain person, brings about the death of one's own spouse or of the other person's spouse, invalidly attempts that marriage." Thus does the Catholic Church prevent someone from entering a marriage when, in order to be free to contract such a marriage, that person had brought about the death of a former spouse.
The impediment of crimen was present in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (see 1917 CIC 1075) and even before that it had been a part of ecclesiastical law for many centuries. Today's canon law on crimen is, in comparison with earlier law, much simplified, but reliable commentators on it such as Beal, Doyle, Kelly, and Hervada believe it means pretty much just what it says. Focusing our discussion, then, on factors suggested by the Schiavo situation, three things are required in order for the canonical impediment of crimen to apply.
1) The original parties must have been validly married. This fact that can be presumed, however, whenever there is a public celebration of a Catholic wedding.
2) At the time of the killing, the surviving spouse must have been intending to enter marriage with a specific person once free of the prior marriage bond. This is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Evidence such as positive statements about wanting to marry another or behavior consistent with future marriage plans, can be used to show this intention to marry. By the way, the fact that one might have multiple motives for wanting to cause the death of one's spouse (say, also the desire to save money on the disabled spouse’s health care), would not obviate the desire-to-marry motive.
3) The death of one spouse must be brought about by the surviving spouse. This does not mean, though, that the survivor spouse needs to have "struck the deadly blow". Commentators agree that a death brought about at the behest of the survivor qualifies for imposition of the impediment. Even if, therefore, spousal death came about with the approval a civil court and no civil liability could be attached to the instigator, one would still be burdened by the canonical impediment if, under the Church's moral analysis, one is found to have been morally responsible for the death of one's former spouse.
Once incurred, the impediment of crimen never ceases on its own. The mere passage of time will not erase it, not even if, sadly, after many years, people more or less forget about the dead spouse. Pastors cannot grant a dispensation from this impediment, nor can bishops. Even if a cleric is found to witness the wedding of one laboring under the impediment of crimen, such an attempt at marriage is null and of no effect in the eyes of the Church. Only the Apostolic See can dispense from the impediment of crimen (Canon 1078 § 2, n. 2), and commentators agree that the Holy See only very rarely considers such dispensations. Going back at least a hundred years, they can find no example of a dispensation from the impediment of crimen being granted where the fact of one's moral responsibility in the death of a former spouse is public knowledge.
In sum, if, in order to be free to marry a third party, one spouse succeeds in ending the other spouse's life, even through a civilly-approved death by euthanasia, and then goes on to attempt that marriage, such a person, besides facing other moral and even canonical consequences for the spousal death, attempts the subsequent marriage without the blessings of or recognition by the Catholic Church.
Of course, there are those who could say that anyone who is willing to kill a spouse in order to marry another is not likely to worry too much about what the Church thinks about their second wedding. There might be some truth in that, but the fact that some people are going to disregard moral and canon law in their decisions does not mean the Church cannot, or should not, enunciate clearly the rules are by which we should strive to live. The matrimonial impediment established under Canon 1090 is not, and is not intended to be, the Church's primary response to the threat of legalized euthanasia, but it is part of that response, and it would behoove us all to know that, in its way, it too strives to defend the innocent.
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_schiavo.htm
My brothers and sisters, we must not stand idly by. Write to the following persons and voice your objections to this illict and sacrilegious act. This is an act that must surely be an offense to God.
Bishop Robert N. Lynch, Pastoral Center P.O. Box 40200 St. Petersburg, FL. 33743 Phone (727) 344-1611
Congregation for the Clergy Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos Palazzo delle Congregazioni, 00193 Roma, Piazza Pio XII, 3
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.