Bai Macfarlane asks Bishop to Judge Ed Peters’ Writings

See Letter to Bishop

by Bai Macfarlane

See my letter to Bishop Rhoades of Fort Wayne/South Bend, where the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly has its address. I asked His Excellency to judge the opinion of Dr. Edward Peters in the article, “Do Catholics Need Ecclesiastical Permission to Divorce?“

My concern centers on the principles used by civil divorce judges to decide obligations of parties toward each other, coupled with the fact that divorce lawyers charge tens of thousands of dollars to families who need the money for other purposes. From my research on canon law, I found that those who exchange marriage promises in a Catholic ceremony should not be subject to those civil no-fault judgments. Furthermore, with the non-profit organization, Mary’s Advocates, I publicize constitutional principles that could be used to challenge unilateral no-fault divorce.

I ask readers forward this blog to their bishop and ask if he would propose that the USCCB evaluate my request too.  The opinion that I am critiquing is shared by priests and diocesan personnel.

My prayer is for ecclesiastic authorities to exercise their competence and judge cases of separation of spouses, which I believe will lead to reconciliations, or more just outcomes in cases of separation of spouses, even for those in a putative marriage.

In my request to Bishop Rhodes, I described the problem with no-fault divorce. Below see the judgements I seek and my conclusion.  Above find link to open PDF of 20-page letter.

Because of the civil forum’s no-fault divorce laws, a party who has committed no offenses justifying temporary or permanent separation is routinely forced to lose everyday interaction with parties’ children, forced to forfeit party’s right to the material contributions of the other spouse, and forced to financially support the other spouse who is reneging on obligations of marriage. The civil forum has no respect for marriage promises, no expectation for the one reneging on his promises to repair damage as much as humanly possible, and makes no distinction between grounds for temporary separation, permanent separation, and the absence of grounds. In the civil forum, the determination of obligations of parties is routinely opposed to common decency, natural law, divine law, and canon law.

Judgement Sought

I bring to Your Excellency the issues below and ask for your judgement:

1. Is the Church’s exclusive jurisdiction in cases of separation of spouses the following:
   1. a matter of doctrine, such that whoever obstinately places said doctrine in doubt or denies it falls under the censure of heresy (cf 750 §1, 751, 1364 §1);[1] or
   2. a matter definitively proposed by the magisterium of the Church to safeguard and expound the deposit of the faith, such that a person who obstinately rejects said matter, and who does not retract after having been admonished by an ordinary, is to be punished with a just penalty (cf 750 §2, 1371§1)?[2]
2. Is a spouse, or party to a putative marriage, who, based on the judgment of one’s own conscience, petitions in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment while cut off from the Church’s mediation (that also includes binding canonical laws) doing the following:
   1. denying that marriage is a reality of the Church and thereby denying doctrine, such that whoever obstinately places said doctrine in doubt or denies it falls under the censure of heresy (c. 1364 §1); or
   2. denying a matter definitively proposed by the magisterium of the Church to safeguard and expound the deposit of the faith, such that a person who obstinately rejects said matter, and who does not retract after having been admonished by an ordinary, is to be punished with a just penalty (c. 1371§1)?
3. Does the Church’s exclusive jurisdiction in cases of separation include competence to decide any, and which, of the following for a spouse or a party to a putative marriage:
   1. whether a legitimate basis for separation exists;
   2. what the parties are to do, or omit doing, especially in order to observe the law;
   3. what obligations have arisen for the parties from the ecclesiastic proceeding or process and how they must be fulfilled;
   4. whether one may petition in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment?
4. Do cases of separation of spouses pertain to ecclesiastic judges (administrative or judicial venue), who alone are competent to render a decision on the obligations of parties, unless–with the bishop’s permission–the competence is transferred to the civil forum with the voluntary willingness of both parties?
5. According to the common code of canon law, is a spouse (or party to a putative marriage) required to have the bishop’s permission to petition in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment, unless said requirement for permission is waived by particular law?
6. Absent a particular law waiving said requirement, is someone who denies that a spouse (or a party to a putative marriage) is required to obtain the bishop’s permission prior to petitioning in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment, thereby doing the following:
   1. denying that marriage is a reality of the Church and thereby denying doctrine, such that whoever obstinately places said doctrine in doubt or denies it falls under the censure of heresy (c. 1364 §1); or
   2. denying a matter definitively proposed by the magisterium of the Church, such that the person who obstinately rejects said matter, and who does not retract after having been admonished by an ordinary, is to be punished with a just penalty (cf 1371§1)?
   3. denying the duty the person owes the Church according to the prescripts of the law (cf  209 §1)[3]
7. In territories in the United States, does our particular ecclesiastical law require that no spouse (or party to a putative marriage) may petition in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment without first having obtained the bishop’s permission?
8. In territories in the United States, does any spouse (or party to a putative marriage) who petitions in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment, without first having obtained the bishop’s permission, incur grave guilt?
9. In territories in the United States, is any spouse (or party to a putative marriage) who petitions in the civil forum for civil divorce, civil separation, or civil annulment, without first having obtained the bishop’s permission, to be punished through the judgment of the bishop.
10. Is separating from one’s spouse (or the other party in a putative marriage) without a legitimate reason as delimited in Canon Law and jurisprudence an object of grave manifest sin?

Conclusion

While the particular rules for judging cases of separation of spouse are not of divine law, the necessity of the Church to have some kind of just process for managing cases of separation of spouses is arguably of divine law. This topic merits clear teaching because those who obstinately doubt truths that are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith are heretics.

Those who participate in Catholic marriage ceremonies should be advised how authorities in the civil forum and the Church are going to respond in a marriage crisis. Is the Church going to remain silent when one spouse, or party to a putative marriage, reneges on the marriage promises? Do those in ecclesiastic executive and judicial power tacitly condone all Catholics petitioning in the civil forum for divorce, legal separation, or civil annulment? Are Church leaders giving government legislators, judges, and civil lawyers unlimited authority to impair on obligations of parties in a Catholic marriage ceremony? Children are being forcibly taken from the spouse who properly consented to marriage and did nothing grave justifying separation of spouses. These spouses, who are counting on the marriage promises to be upheld, are being forced out of their own homes, forced routinely to pay money to an abandoner who lives with parties’ children, and denied due support from the other spouse that was promised in marriage.

Mary’s Advocates seeks from Your Excellency judgments so that parties to a Catholic marriage ceremony and their children can know whether they alone facing the evil of divorce. For your consideration, I am including a copy of the paper by Dr. Donald Asci (professor of Theology at Franciscan University of America): The Evil of Divorce and the Dignity of the Human Person – Understanding the Immorality of Divorce through St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

Endnotes

[1] Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

[2] Can. 750 §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty: 1^o in addition to the case mentioned in can. 1364, §1, a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in can. 750, §2 or in can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary;

[3] Can. 209 §1. The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church. §2. With great diligence they are to fulfill the duties which they owe to the universal Church and the particular church to which they belong according to the prescripts of the law.