Confusing Homily on Feast of the Holy Family

Deacon in Phoenix Says own Present Marriage is Invalid

January 6, 2015. Open letter to Deacon Jim,

Open Letter to Deacon Jim,

After watching the YouTube of your homily on the Feast of the Holy Family, I’m raising questions. While you gave great advice for marriage, I am concerned that you sowed the seeds that would lead listeners to give up on marriage because of what you said about about divorce and annulments.

If a marriage as good as yours is invalid, why should the average Joe or Jane, with an average marriage, even try? What is even the point of a priest conducting a premarital investigation, if parties who understand marriage as well as you obviously do, have an invalid marriage? The priest, during his premarital investigation is required to determine that it “must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its [the marriage’s] valid and licit celebration” (can. 1066).

Nobody could argue against your description of how you and your wife prioritize your lives, with God’s will first, the marriage next, followed by the other party, and lastly yourself. You and your wife agree that divorce and separation would never be an option. I loved the parallel you made between marriage and a row boat; when each party has one of the oars, they better darn well learn how to row together. But listeners are left confused about whether or not you have an actual wife at all; she sounds more like a putative wife

I hope to persuade you to use different vocabulary in the future, so as to convey better the Catholic understanding of marriage, divorce, and annulment. Can you be a Simon of Cyrene and a Veronica for those in challenging marriages? By this, I am asking the Church to support those carrying the cross of a difficult marriage, especially those being handed over to the civil forum to be tortured, as is forced no-fault divorce against a spouse that has done nothing grave enough to justify separation.

MEDIOCRE MARRIAGES ARE OK,

AND CAN BE IMPROVED

My concerns stem from what you said about divorce and annulment. You said 50% of marriages end in divorce; most couples do not feel like they are married to a close friend; and that 10% of those married say they do not have emotional intimacy. When you make statements like this, would you mind please adding an afterthought clarifying that being married to one’s best friend and emotional intimacy are not requirements for a valid marriage, and lack thereof are not justifications for separation and divorce? For Catholics, separation and divorce is only justified if the other spouse has done something so grave that maintaining the common conjugal life is dangerous, has committed adultery, or has made it impossible for the family to practice the faith (See Mary’s Advocates’Observations, Separation Sec. E-H)

DIVORCE COURTS VIOLATE THE PROMISES

OF THOSE MARRYING IN THE CHURCH

When you referred to people who tell you they are getting divorced and the wonderful people going through the annulment process, you ask the question, “I wonder what would have happened to the marriage, if someone at some point had offered them some hope, had told them of God’s healing mercy.” If you have room for another sentence, could you teach listeners about the difference between how Catholics handle separation and divorce compared to how the civil forum handles it?

Those with Catholic marriages (which must be presumed valid until proven otherwise) accept the obligation to live together unless a legitimate reason for separation exists. The civil divorce courts don’t have competence to relieve a party of his full obligation to support the marital home (1983 CIC c. 104, 1153, 1059, 1917 CIC c. 1013 mutuum adiutorium, incorporated in bonum coniugum of 1983 CIC c. 1055). When no-fault divorces are forced on a party that has done nothing grave to justify separation, the civil courts purport to relieve the party causing the break-up of his full obligation to support the marital home, which is contrary to canon law, divine law, and natural law. When no-fault divorces are forced on a party that has done nothing grave enough to justify separation, the civil courts purport to have power to interfere with the innocent spouse’ right to maintain his everyday contact and parenting rights over his children—which is contrary to canon law, divine law, and natural law (can. 226 §2).

For Catholics, civil divorce is nothing more than separation of spouses that is put on record in the civil forum. You might find interesting “The Cases of Separation of Spouses according to the New Code,” originally published in Spanish by the Vatican’s Publishing House Liberia Editrice Vaticana in 1984. They taught that “if the service of assistance [for those who find themselves in conflictive matrimonial situations] does not exist [in the pastoral organization of the diocese], it must be created.”

CONFUSION CAUSED BY YOUR MARRIAGE BEING INVALID

In your homily, you explained how you and your wife were trained to work with those in the parish going through annulments and that you are now advocates for the diocese. You said that after this training, you concluded that your own marriage is invalid because you and your bride were incapable of entering into a marriage. You told the congregation the following:

As we studied the annulment process in general and the various grounds in particular one thing became glaringly obvious. Based on our history, what we each brought into the relationship and other factors I won’t go into, if we were to divorce today, we could file for an annulment, and we could find provable grounds on either of us. In plain English, if necessary we could prove that according to the precepts of the church, 17 years ago we did not enter into a Catholic marriage because we were incapable of it (Watch video above left: 2 minutes, 35 seconds).

Your listeners would likely not know that an advocate for an annulment case is like a lawyer for a civil or criminal case. The title advocate is reserved for a doctor in canon law, or someone approved by the Bishop as being “truly expert in canon law” (canon 1483). Your listeners would not know that that word you used, incapable, only appears in one ground for annulment. Canon 1095 lists the criterion for those that are “incapable of contracting marriage.”

I most certainly want to respect your privacy and appreciate that “the other factors that you won’t go into” are nobody’s business. So please consider my comments knowing that I am only being hypothetical for the sake of discussion. Previously, I wrote (putative)wife, because it sounds like you know you have an invalid marriage. A marriage doesn’t become invalid because a tribunal decrees that it was proved to be invalid; a marriage is either valid or invalid from the day of the wedding. So, when you say that you know you have grounds for an annulment, in plain English, you are saying that you know you have an invalid marriage. Canon 1061 §3 shows that an invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity, but I’m not even sure if that would apply to because you say your marriage is invalid because both parties were of incapable.

Canon 1095 has three sections. A permanent lack of reason from something like untreatable schizophrenia as in section §1 seems not to apply because that would be impossible—as evidenced by your ministries. If section § 1 applied due to a transitory condition, like a drunken stupor, would you please convalidate your marriage, rather than publicizing that you have an invalid marriage?

Canon 1095 section §3 seems not to apply because you demonstrated that you are capable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage, as described in your homily.

This leaves only canon 1095 §2, which is where your homily gets really confusing. If you had a judgment problem “concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted”—as is the only kind of judgment problem applicable to this ground—it would have been impossible that you and your wife live the priorities that you described in your homily. A judgment problem about other objects would have nothing to do with invalidating a marriage.

Recently-deceased Cardinal Edward Egan was an instructor of canon law in Rome, an editor of the canon law for Saint Pope John Paul II, and a judge at the Roman Rota. Shortly after the 1983 code of canon law was published, he wrote an article in the scholarly journal of the Roman Rota about canon 1095 §2 wherein he shows four vantage points from which to understand the judgment problem. He also says that most marriages are valid:

Most people today who live in areas of the world where ecclesiastical marriage tribunals are active are sophisticated enough to know that most marriages are valid because most men and women, however pleasant or unpleasant, however educated or uneducated, are able to marry. These people can understand an extraordinary case, something unusual having happened in peculiar circumstances, in a word, an exception; and they can admit that exceptions are at times operative even in the doing of something as ordinary and plain as marrying. However, when the exception becomes the rule, they may remain silent; but they are not without thoughts. The vast majority of marriages are valid, the vast majority of people know it, and they know we know it too (page 38).

Ignatius Press recently published a book containing 54 pages about those incapable of consenting to marriage: “When Is Marriage Null? Guide to the Grounds of Matrimonial Nullity for Pastors, Counselors, and Lay Faithful.” The author says “it would be strange to think for example that we could consider someone incapable of assessing these obligations with sufficient use of reason, or that he had seriously lacked discretion of judgment concerning them, if it turned out that for his part he had observed said obligations, maybe even for a long time” (page 193). You and your wife have observed said obligations for a long time, so it seems strange that section §2 could apply to your marriage either.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,

Bai Macfarlane

Director/Founder Mary’s Advocates

REPLY FROM DEACON JIM BEATTIE

January 15, 2016,

Dear Bai,

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered review of my homily delivered on the Feast of the Holy Family on Dec. 27, 2015. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify any concerns.

I am in a valid marriage. The Church presumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. Normally, that requires an investigation and an adjudication by those authorized by the Church to do so. The investigation normally can only start after a civil divorce, and can only be initiated by one of the two interested parties. (I say “normally” because I would not presume to speak for all cases all over the world.) As none of this has taken place, I not only did not say my marriage was invalid, I have no authority to do so. Saying something “could” be proven is not the same as saying it “has” been proven.

To say that a given marriage IS invalid (present tense) without doing the investigation, is to ignore the teachings of the Church regarding marriage, and in the case of couples married in the Church, denies the sacramentality of the marriage bond.

Couples can enter into a marriage in ways that might potentially be proven to be invalid, but the Church always hopes and prays that any deficiencies or defects present at the time of consent will be healed. Let me suggest two hypothetical cases (Please note, these are generic examples, and I am not writing as a canon lawyer):

Hypothetical Case #1- A couple gets married. Because of their backgrounds, if an annulment were filed, there would be a strong possibility of filing on the grounds of Lack of Due Discretion. However, over time, they grow and mature. They overcome their past, and that which the Church presumes is a valid marriage truly becomes valid.

Hypothetical Case #2- Prior to the marriage a man tells his fiancè that he wants lots of children. At some point later, he tells her that he had and has no intention of having children and that he only told her that so she would marry him. This is a possible grounds of Intention Against Children. However, several years after that conversation, he has a change of heart and becomes open to having children. The Church would consider the Intention Against Children was healed. (It is interesting to note that, if there are children as a result of the union, if an annulment petition is filed later, it cannot be filed with the grounds of Intention Against Children, because the children are proof that the intention was healed.)

Instead of answering the letter on a point-by-point basis, I would like to make the following observations and suggestions to your readers:

Regarding Canon Law – When researching Canon Law there are a number of good sources of information available. However, if someone is seeking advice for a particular situation, if the information is not from a trained Canon Lawyer, authorized by the Church, knowledgeable of any policies and procedures implemented by the local Bishop, and knowledgeable of the particulars of the case – consider that information as informative and not authoritative.

Regarding YouTube Videos – When watching any video posted on the internet, take into account both the intended audience and the context of the message. My homily of 12/27/15 was written in the context of the readings for the Feast of the Holy Family, and was written for my parishioners at St. Timothy’s Catholic Church. St. Timothy’s has been my parish since I converted to Catholicism in 1996. In other words, I was preaching to family, people who know much of my background from other homilies and ministerial work. (Because I was preaching to people who know us, I nuanced things differently than I would have if writing for the Internet.)

The homily I gave was the one the Holy Spirit inspired me to give, and for the audience it was intended, it was received as a testimony of hope and inspiration.

The homily was an exhortation for marriage and to do the work to make it better. That is one reason I strongly recommended the book by Dr. Edward Sri, Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love; Practical Insights from John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, and ended my homily with the exhortation to download and pray:

Prayer of Spouses for Each Other

Lord Jesus, grant that I and my spouse may have a true and understanding love for each other. Grant that we may both be filled with faith and trust. Give us the grace to live with each other in peace and harmony. May we always bear with one another’s weaknesses and grow from each other’s strengths. Help us to forgive one another’s failings and grant us patience, kindness, cheerfulness and the spirit of placing the well-being of one another ahead of self.

May the love that brought us together grow and mature with each passing year. Bring us both ever closer to You through our love for each other. Let our love grow to perfection. Amen (Source- Catholic.org)

Regarding carrying the cross of a difficult marriage – I would not presume to say that I understand the pain and difficulties involved. Any words I would write would be insufficient to address the pain of someone in that situation. However, I would like to recommend a book that was recommended to me by a Priest who is also a Hermit in the Diocese of Phoenix. He is quite likely the most holy man I have ever met. He said that it is a book he goes back to time after time. It is a book we have recommended in homilies and when working with those struggling, including those going through difficult marriages. The response has been positive, and I encourage anyone, especially someone in a difficult marriage, to read it.

The book is:

Into Your Hands, Father; Abandoning Ourselves to the God Who Loves Us. The author is Fr. Wilfrid Stinissen, and it is published by Ignatius Press.

Thank you again for the opportunity to write. If anyone would like to correspond with me, I can be contacted at jsbeattie@sttimothymesa.org. I won’t give advice on Canon Law, but at the least I can be a sounding board and pray for those who request it.

God Bless,

Deacon Jim Beattie

BAI’S ANSWER TO REPLY

January 17, 2016

Thank you for your reply to my open letter. It is good to know that your parish audience might not have interpreted your comments the way an internet viewer might have interpreted them.

I recognize that any information I write about defending marriage can only be informative, not authoritative. One of my goals is in point readers to writings of those who are authoritative. Amongst some with whom I correspond (that are defending their marriage against accusations of nullity), they find that Mary’s Advocate’s website provides them with more information about defending their marriage than information from trained canon lawyers that are on staff in their own diocese. Our site has “The Defender’s Page” that includes a sequence of events, sample letters, and recommended books. The National Catholic Register recently published an article about our work Advocacy for Abandoned Spouses Fulfills Synod’s Call; Mary’s Advocates fills a gap in marriage ministries, by assisting Catholics whose spouses want to leave their sacramental unions.

In one of your examples of a couple that can enter into a marriage that might potentially be proven to be invalid you stated the following:

A couple gets married. Because of their backgrounds, if an annulment were filed, there would be a strong possibility of filing on the grounds of Lack of Due Discretion. However, over time, they grow and mature.

You may find interesting that, in 2015, I was asked to prepare a paper to be sent to the delegates to the bishops synod. Human Life International Rome distributed the papers to the bishops. On page 10, I quote Cardinal Raymond Burke, Saint Pope John Paul II, and Roman Rota Judge Msgr. Kenneth Boccafola; they all expressed concerns about granting annulments based on the reason of immaturity (page 10). In text of my oral presentation that I gave in Rome, I reference the teaching of the 2006 Dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota. He described his concern:

“One does not encounter the feared jurisprudential rigidity, but rather the laxism in application of the law. This is found in the accustomed reasoning of ecclesiastical sentences which not unfrequently identify a minimal preparation for sacramental marriage, insufficient human maturity under stood in a general way or imprudence in behavior, with the lack of the necessary discretion of judgement or of the desired Fitness for the essential obligations of marriage” (page 9).

On our resource page for respondent’s in nullity cases, the book published by Ignatius Press is recommended: When Is Marriage Null? Guide to the Grounds of Matrimonial Nullity for Pastors, Counselors, and Lay Faithful by Paolo Bianchi.

This book has forward by Cardinal Raymond Burke, who served as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. The Signatura is the highest appellate tribunal in the world, over the Roman Rota and all the Pontifical Councils and Congregations. Originally published in Italian, the author gives thorough explanations of the most common grounds used for nullity cases. Plus, he provides lists of criteria that anyone can use to understand whether a ground is applicable in a particular case. Fifty-three pages are dedicated to Canon 1095, for cases in which parties suffered psychological impediments making them unable to consent to marriage.

Sincerely Yours,

Bai