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
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.