After Death Do We Part (Canon Law & Michael Schiavo's 2nd wedding)

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:

My understanding is the Church is against euthanisia. So lets for a second set aside the fact that he purposefully murdered Terri...although in criminial law Shivo didn't do anything wrong, in church law to aid euthanising someone would to me make it killing in the eyes of the church and therefore the church should NOT have allowed the second marrigage.

On a side not its proposterous that the church will allow this but won't allow people to get married a second time in events such as abuse, neglect and such or make non catholics do this annulment dance if they just so happen to marry a catholic. But the allow this monster to go on with his wife.

This beast denied Terri Communion in her last days. That speaks volumes, but I"m sure God will handle this in the end ;)

(cradle catholic incase you all are qualifying statments)

The topic of annulment was brought up a few times. It is not logically related at all. With Terri's death the marriage of Michael and Terri was legally dissolved. Had Michael divorced her, he would need an annulment in order to marry. But as it is he was free to remarry in the Church, generally speaking, as he was a widower. The only reason for the Church to prevent his second marriage was Canon 1090 preventing murderers from contracting a marriage that became otherwise possible because of the murder.

"I have this something against him, yes."

That's obvious.

"The blind judge did not do the job."

I asked how his eyesight affected his job. Can you give me one example of that? Second request.

"If Florida legal standard allows innocent disabled women starved to death, then, like I said, screw the Florida legal standard."

What if Terri had a written Living Will stating she wouldn't want to live like that? Would it then be OK to starve her to death, or would you force her to continue living in her condition, despite her written request to the contrary?

I have no clue whether the blind judge was hindered by his blindness is deciding the case; I describe his as blind judge because he is a blind judge and in order to bypass rules of this forum that prohibit swearing.

If Terri had a recent to her incapacitation living will to that effect, the law would probably had been followed if she were euthanized. No, it would not have been morally right anyway, because no one has a moral right to suicide. The legal possibility of euthanasia in the presence of a living will is another argument for all honest people to ignore secular laws and live by their conscience and the Church law instead.

"to ignore secular laws and live by their conscience and the Church law instead."

Well, when we change from a representative republic to a theocracy your point will be valid. In the meantime, feel free to ignore secular law at your own risk.

Florida law states that Terri may refuse artificial life saving measures, whether her request is in writing OR VERBALLY.

No no you missed me I understand that an annulement is not required in this case...completely understand. However, i do believe this new marriage is an issued because of the doctorine on euthanasia. Shivo ended the life of his wife . That is against canon law and why i feel this marriage should not have been recognized by the church

What I was pointing out although not directly related. The policy on annulments is very tedious and now being imposed on non-catholics, yet, this guy was allowed to marry inside the church despite, having children with another woman while married, committing adultry and participating in the euthanizing of his wife, which of course dissolved the marriage, she died.

It was just a bit unnerving to read this. Nothing more and I definately and personally understand the issue of annulment. We are having to put two non catholics though the annulment process now.

The paradox seems wrong to me that's all. But like I said, God will sort it out in the end.

feel free to ignore secular law at your own risk

Of course there is risk, and it will be increasing. As the state embarks on a journey of experimentation in man-made law it is likely to become more and more hostile to religion, and we are witnessing that as well.

Risk or not, there is also a certainty of eternal damnation for those who, like the blind judge, cooperate with immoral law.

Two points. It is not at all certain that Michael's betrayal of his wife, reprehensible as it is, rendered the marriage invalid in the eye of the church. It certainly justified separation and various criminal penalties for adultery and neglect when and where available (but see my previous post about the widening gap between the secular law and morality). But annulement is granted, or not, solely on the basis of how the marriage was entered into. If a marriage is entered into legally from the standpoint of the Chruch, then no matter how badly it deteriorates over time, annulment should not be granted, although, of course, Terri would have been advised to leave Michael for her safety. Generally speaking, abuse and adultery matter in the annulment process only inasmuch as they are evidence of absence of the right intention as the marriage was entered into. For example, if a spouse never intended to stay faithful, then the marriage was not licit, and adultery will serve as evidence of wrong intention. But it is not dispositive in itself.

Regarding annulment for non-Catholics, as long as the Church allows (with a dispensation, nearly always granted) a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the failed marriage has to be annuled for the sake of the Catholic spouse, if that Catholic spouse wishes to re-marry. I am sure you understand this, but I wanted to explain that to the readers.

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.

Did not Pope John Paul II say before he died that what Michael was doing to Terri was wrong? I may be mistaken, but I recall that he did.

If PJPII said that it was wrongful for Michael to starve Terri, I would find it hard to argue that the Church should not regard Terri's blood as being on Michael's hands unless a later Pope declares otherwise.

I recognize that the Pope is a busy man, but I would think that the officiation of Michael's new "wedding" should be grounds for execommunication.

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.