The Ball is in Card. Fernández’ Court

The ball is in Card. Fernández’ Court because on 23 September 2024, I asked his Dicastery (formerly known as the C.D.F.) to judge a statement written by Card. Coccopalmerio that I challenge as contrary or harmful to right faith and morals.

My regular readers know I’ve found the Church has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage separation cases and no individual has the right to personally determine, by his own judgment, that civil divorce is tolerable in his situation. Cardinal Coccopalmerio said the opposite in 2015, and his statement was used by my Bishop to deny us permission to publish a leaflet and a 4-page document.

Specifically, on 1 July 2024, I asked for approval of this statement:

Plus, we asked my Bishop for approval of our 4-page template “Petition to Bishop to Facilitate Reconciliation or for Decree of Abandonment.”

Bishop Malesic

Shortly after receiving my request, Cleveland’s Bishop Malesic rejected both of our documents and he reiterated a message from his predecessor “you must note the fact that in the United States, it is not a moral or canonical obligation to seek the bishop’s permission to approach the civil authorities for separation or divorce.”  Prior to our appealing to higher authorities, canon law requires us to ask the Bishop to change his mind, which I did on 31 July 2024.

Coccopalmerio

In Bishop Malesic’s second rejection, he said that I appear to be misunderstanding many of the sources which I cite.  He also cited Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s 4 November 2015 letter that is the basis for the requirement that Cleveland is putting me under.   In 2015, Card. Cocco’ was in charge of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (i.e., canon law). I find that Card. Cocco’ turned canon law upside down (12 January 2016 critique). His letter is clearly not an authentic interpretation of canon law because it was neither approved in forma specifica by the Roman Pontiff, nor developed after consultation with the other competent curial institutions. Only after receiving my Bishop’s second rejection, is the window open to make recourse to a competent Dicastery in Rome.

Card. Fernandez

I chose to make recourse to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith because they have competence to rebut dangerous teachings, to foster a proper application of the canonical norms, and promote and safeguard the integrity of Catholic teaching on faith and morals. Presently, Card. Fernández oversees that Dicastery. However, after the controversy surrounding his Fiducia supplicans, nothing will surprise me.

If the Dicastery ignores us or rejects us, there is the opportunity to bring the recourse to the Signatura where Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Raymond Burke are judges.  On its face, it seems absurd that a lay woman, such as me, would challenge the Cardinal who oversaw the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Over the years, however, too many people (including canon lawyers, bishops, professors of canon law, and diocesan employees) have led me to believe I’m right. So, I’ll continue to work towards implementation of the canon law upholding Catholic marriage against unjust divorce.

Find my recourse to the Dicastery HERE. To support my positions, I asked them to “consider the meanings of various terms provided by the former Pro-Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who was a member of the faculty of the Pontifical Roman Seminary at S. Apollinaris, a Doctor of Philosophy, sacred theology, civil law, and ecclesiastical law: Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. In his work Institutiones Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici Vol. II (Institutions Of Public Ecclesiastical Law).”

My recourse concludes with the following line of reasoning: