Ed Peters on permission to divorce: John Paul 2 must have meant canons were "symbolic."

Ed Peters currently holds the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair and his canonical opinions carry more weight by far than any of his peers. He is the heavyweight champion and when he speaks, he wins. He recently wrote an article here explaining why Americans do not need the local bishop's permission to divorce. He writes: "Canons 1151-1155 of the Code of Canon Law state that Roman Catholics wishing to separate (permanently) from their spouses must obtain ecclesiastical permission for the cessation of conjugal life. Canons 1692-1696 set forth the procedure for obtaining that authorization." Because he is too knowledgeable to misinterpret, he openly admits the plain meaning of the canons - that they do require the bishop's permission to divorce.

                                                              -  however  -

He concludes by saying that Americans may safely ignore these laws because John Paul II likely meant them only "symbolically." According to Ed Peters, the pope "apparently" meant them to be symbolic because nothing else makes any logical sense to Peters. This is because he incorrectly believes that the common conjugal life of spouses + children is a MERE civil effect of marriage, to be adjudicated by the state. (New Commentary of Canon Law pg 1255 refutes him).

 Just because the state can touch it, does not mean the state may touch it. The Church says "hands off" except for the mere civil legal status (Can 1059). Ed Peters, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, the US bishops and Martin Luther all tell the state "hands on." Instead, what should be happening is that only after the bishop determines that the cause is appropriate for the state enforcement, may the spouse go ahead. (can. 1692)

Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum #23 said that it is a "deception" to separate contract from bond and hand the marriage contract to the state (for divorce) and the bond to the Church (for annulment). The contract and the bond must remain together! Four years later, the 3rd Council of Baltimore #126 made accommodation for civil divorce, but only with the local bishop's permission. Those who follow Ed Peters' advice and go without bishop's permission "incur the guilt of grave sin."

 Questions for Ed Peters:

1. Did the bishop authors of 3 Balt. #126 mean for it to be "symbolic" as well? 

2. If JP II meant for canon 1692 to be symbolic, does that mean that 3 Balt #126 has only been      symbolically abrogated? (Can. 6.2 does not abrogate)

3. Is a "symbolic" canon even a thing? 

"Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued." (Can. 12)

Regarding the separation canons which Ed Peters concludes must be "symbolic," John Paul II stated: 

 "[they are] to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed... they have juridical binding force, ... they will have the force of law beginning from the first day of Advent of this year, 1983. I therefore exhort all the faithful to observe the proposed legislation with a sincere spirit and good will in the hope that there may flower again in the Church a renewed discipline."

Can. 18 "Laws which .. contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation." The separation canons contain this exception.

 Ed Peters says "some people coming across these canons understandably, but wrongly, conclude that, like most other canons in the Code, these norms must be applicable everywhere." 

They are applicable universally because unjust separation of spouses is a grave sin. CCC 2384.

Only the local ordinary is to determine just cause. It is an axiom of law that no one may judge their own case. All separations are to have a promoter of justice (can. 1696). Otherwise, the faithful are fed to the No-Fault lions. "does he dare go to law before the unrighteous..? 1 Cor 6

If US bishops started upholding canon law then the Catholic divorce culture would do a 180. Driver's obey the speed limit when police start handing out tickets. Spouses stop separating when they know they must obtain permission from their bishop - or be denied Communion. Any bishop, armed with canon law, could shut down divorce in his diocese in short order. For example, Uganda and Nigeria do not have a Catholic divorce problem because those spouses who separate without permission are denied Communion. The canons bring "law and order." Conversely, ignoring them while multiplying annulments exponentially, perpetuate the problem.

Ed Peters appears to be hoisted by his own petard. A couple of his quotes:

"Sever ‘canon law’ from ‘pastoral practice’ and lots of things make sense." (like DIY separation / divorce)

"Catholics are not free to pick and choose which aspects of Church discipline on marriage they will observe and which ones they won’t." (unless nobody in the USA is following them, then we must explain them away)

Ed Peters recently responded to Bai MacFarlane's rebuttal of his "permission to divorce" paper.  "Roman authorities will certainly reach their (conclusions) in due course." Permission has been required all along and the English-speaking world has simply ignored the law. It is standard procedure for the "annulments trump marriage" crowd to discuss the issue as little as possible and preserve the status quo while banking that Rome will eventually change the law. Ain't gonna happen because wholesale DIY unilateral separation can never square with justice. "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice.."

This has a lot more to do with Church politics than it does with canon law. If Ed Peters brings the fight to Bai MacFarlane, he will lose. No wonder he does not "see much use in replying."

-John Farrell