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
In years past it did indeed seem that the Catholic Church has turned a blind eye to a multitude of abuses. I got fed up years ago. We have a new Pope, and perhaps the abuses will get a hearing? That includes the whole scope, not the Schiavo marriage. That is merely an offensive blip on the screen, considering the horrors that go on.
Given that the secular law allows abortion on demand, how much is the Church bound to respect it?
I guess my fear is that rather than have a schism, things will go on much as they have, hardline on paper, permissiveness in practice, although I think there has been some reigning in as to the liturgy in some parts of the country, and I have no idea what is going on in the rest of the Catholic world, actually I do and do not like a lot of what I read about, heterodoxy.
To be objective, a lot of what we hold dear because it is traditional with a small t is the result of cultural infusion, but that is not the same as mixing the liturgy with other religions' holy books, can't remember what happened in India.
I've always liked the new mass but think that if I attended one in many parts of the world I wouldn't know where I was and not because I couldn't understand the language.
Good. I hope they nail him, and whoever allowed the wedding to happen.
Right, but canon 1090 specifically mentions "crime" so it is important to ask, whose definition of a crime.
I ask this because I think the time is approaching when the Church will have to recognize no civil law and instead rely entirely on her own internal jurisprudence. That is because the secular law is departing from the natural law not just on one issue that one might call exceptional, but more and more presents a coherent in its own way secular outlook incompatible with Christianity in toto.
" In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven." Mark 12:23-25
"In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife. And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives." Luke 20:33-35
As inexcusable as their behavior is, I think Schiavo and Mrs. Schiavo have less to answer for than the Bishop who permitted this mockery does.
In my opinion the real culprit is the democracy worship. We have gotten the notion that if enough people vote for something, then it is good enough as law. That notion is patently wrong, -- remember the famous dictum about two wolves and one sheep democratically electing the dinner menu, -- but it is our jurisprudence today. The masturbatory compulsion for more laws is a corollary, because as the innate need of justice remains frustrated, politicians think that if they only put another refinement on the big lie, the lie would ring true. It never does.
I think that "the people" tend to be conservative. The "sexual revolution" was, after all driven by the children of the elite. The Baby Boomers are split between the children of the upper classes and those of the lower classes. The latter usually vote against novelty. I mean, of course, the voters. That is why the elites have proceeded through the Courts, which are part of our social aristocracy.
I know he's trying, and he has a lot on his plate. Too many abuses have taken place over the years, and it's going to take a long time to clean it up. The seminaries will be like cleaning out the Stygian stables :/
Many years ago when Latin was the language of the Mass, no matter where on earth you went, you knew what time it would be held and you knew the language. It's sad to see what regular church services have turned into.
I like your alliteration there :-). You are definitely on to something. Since I never was much into Greek mythology or wherever that gem was coined, I googled to see if it was spelled correctly :-).
Hmmmm. A lot comes up, but check this out: Frozen restrooms, revolting rectories, and the crappiest place on Earth
"Next, we had a church rectory in Dyer, Indiana, that was reeling from the destructive forces of animal poop -- thirteen years' worth of it, to be precise. When a new pastor took over the helm of the Catholic house of worship recently, he found that his predecessor had a penchant for keeping pets in the living quarters adjacent to the church. Unfortunately that prior priest did not seem to have any housekeeping skills. The replacement priest, the Rev. Terry Steffens, was greeted in his new digs by the stench of feces deposited in prodigious quantities by dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, and guinea pigs."
More at link and worth clicking on the news link about the rectory. Maybe there is some symbolism here?
Then the analogy to Noah's Ark. I'm sure those animals weren't on the ark for 13 years! That page has too much poop on it for me. Just when you think you have heard everything . . .reminds me I need to change my two cat boxes today. I hate that chore! One cat now, two boxes, 'cuz that's what she's used to when I had my other one (they never got along and animals get goofy sometimes when you introduce strange ones into the household), but I don't want to digress into the loss of her again. I'm afraid if I don't keep up the two boxes, you know what cats do. I could have been like that pastor, as things got a little crazy years ago around here for awhile vis a vis pets, but not that crazy. One spot in the basement (don't like to go down there) got pretty bad, but it is all clean now and two places on the carpeting are ruined but no longer used for that, thank heaven.
That's why I don't want any more pets after this one because all my life I've cleaned up after them and enough is enough.
I'm glad the Pope Benedict loves cats, but I doubt he ever changed any litter boxes . . . but he just might have.
The legal term is "allowing her to die, as per her wishes".
Well, Terri is dead rather than living her life in the care and comfort of her family and friends who loved her. Michael didn't get an annullment - he got a court order to kill her.
I don't see how he could have gotten an annullment. Divorce was the only legal way out, but Jody wanted a church wedding, being all moral and such.
They also tend to be self-serving. I would agree that if the damn elite somehow were removed from television and the pork industry eliminated in the state and federal governments, -- in oher words if people just voted in or out issue after issue without the indirection of talkiig heads, lawyers and politicians, then we'd move the country to the right. But the improvement would be marginal (and besides, there is a good reason to preserve the checks and balances inherent in a republican form of government). The notion that people should be able to vote on moral law is wrong fundamentally; it is wrong even if they tend to vote right.
You recall, I am sure, the argumentation that in fact the blind judge delivered nothing but an abortion of law, given the absence of proof that Terri wished to be euthanised.
But I would grant you that as a practical matter the law has spoken, and an innocent disabled woman was killed in full accordance with the law, and in full perversion of the moral law. Which is my point today, that the Church should simply disregard anything produced by the secular courts, given the legal climate such as manifest in the Schiavo case.
Oh, I know for a fact that he's not blind -- I watched the video as his eyes followed the balloon around the courtroom.
You have something against blind people? They're not good enough? They can't do the job? Please point out where Judge Greer was unable to do his duty as the judge in this case due to his eyesight. One example will do.
"given the absence of proof that Terri wished to be euthanised."
Hmmmmm. I read where the judge had "clear and convincing" evidence as to Terri's wishes, the Florida standard. Maybe you're confusing this with another case.
The blind judge did not do the job. I have this something against him, yes.
If Florida legal standard allows innocent disabled women starved to death, then, like I said, screw the Florida legal standard.
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.