Secretary of Dicastery on Sacraments, a Heretic?

Bishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, who is the Secretary of the Dicastery in Rome overseeing the discipline of the sacraments, seems to hold a position that contradicts Catholic doctrine on marriage jurisdiction. This error is historically condemned as anathema.  Anathema means a formal condemnation of heresy, expressed in canons with the phrase: “If anyone says…let him be anathema.” (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia).

Mary’s Advocates publicizes the doctrine that the Church has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage cases of separation.  Divorce is simply a case of separation when the government decides the obligations of spouses toward each other and their children. Bishop Viola is the Secretary at The Dicastery of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. He undercuts the Church’s exclusive jurisdiction over marriage separation in his recent letter rejecting a canon law appeal. As a result, with Mary’s Advocates’ help, the appellant is making recourse to the Supreme Tribunal of the Signatura.  Cardinals Raymond Burke , Gerhard Müller, and Joseph Tobin are members of that Tribunal.

I’ve been collaborating with the appellant (we’ll call her Susan), who believes her husband abandoned their marriage with no just cause. He filed for divorce in January. At issue for the Signatura is whether a Catholic, who married in a Catholic rite, is free to be one’s own judge. For example, is one free to decide on one’s own authority that it is acceptable to file for civil divorce?

At issue is whether the Church teaches that the civil government has rightful authority to relieve a spouse of the obligation to maintain an intact home and empower a spouse to retroactively recoup the mutual help the spouse gave to the marital household.  The mutual help is recouped through the civil court’s equitable split of property. Generally, for the duration of the marriage, both spouses worked inside and outside the home to accumulate property. The no-fault divorce courts make one spouse pay the other the value of half the property.  The civil courts do not care whether one was the faithful spouse, and the other was an abandoning spouse, adulterer, or dangerously abusive.

Where Susan lives, the state court is compelled by statute to grant a divorce to any plaintiff if the spouses have been separated for a year.  Other states have similar laws, leaving an abandoned spouse powerless to stop the court from forcing a divorce after the other party has lived elsewhere.

Essentially, Bishop Viola implies that the civil courts may act as they please regarding obligations of spouses, and the Church neither objects nor offers relevant teaching.  He appears to mistakenly think Susan will get a fair outcome by filing for divorce herself and assumes the outcome will be in accord with divine law. Susan’s original petition relies on the fact that her husband abandoned their marriage, and she seeks a canonical ruling from her bishop in a marriage separation case. However, Bishop Viola appears uncertain about whether such a ruling even exists.  Susan argues before the Signatura that the Church never ceded its exclusive authority over separation of spouses to the civil courts.  For details, see Susan’s recourse to the Signatura, with identifying information removed.

Mary’s Advocates publishes a template petition to initiate a canonical proceeding for an abandoned spouse to invoke the Catholic Code of Canon Law in cases of separation of spouses.  We publish numerous scholarly writings and jurisprudence from the appellate Tribunal of the Roman Rota, which Susan referenced in her appeals.