Recently, Ed Peters responded to a piece in 1Peter5 which exposed the don't ask, don't tell policy of the English-speaking Church when it comes to proper meaning and practice of the separation canons (1151-1155 and 1692-1696). To me, he seemed displeased with the author (Clay Rossi) for pointing out the fact that divorce lawyers cannot bank on which spouse is acting "contrary to justice," since the local Church has shirked her responsibility to adjudicate spousal separations and has instead outsourced all to the civil forum, whether the separations are in accord with divine law - or not. Or maybe it was because Rossi hit the nail on the head when he exposed what is really going on with the American hierarchy: the "tried and true avoidance mechanism of 'don’t ask, don’t tell.'" Ouch.
Ed Peters says:
"That is the precise point at issue, whether bishops have to issue such rulings in the first place!" Correct. What is the answer? It is of course "yes," permission is required. But Ed says "no," it is not required. He says that it is wrong to conclude that "these (universal permission for divorce) norms must be applicable everywhere.
Ed Peters apparently thinks that only canon lawyers can make any conclusions about Church law regarding permission for divorce. Better leave this to the professionals..
Your average beer drinking rock-n-roll Catholic can read the commentaries on canon law by the bestand brightest. "Since divorce laws have proliferated (in the USA)..the bishop's authorization is a necessary precaution.."
Don't ask, don't tell is Ed Peters M.O. when it comes to this question.
Why do I say this? Because the "no permission required" crowd has no argument. So far, Ed Peters has put forward that everybody is ignoring it, so that makes it OK, and that it's wrong for Americans to feel obligated to follow the law, therefore JP2 really meant that the canons must be merely "symbolic." Neither of his assertions can be defended, so his only defense is silence. The more he speaks on this topic, the more his position crumbles as he gets backed into a corner.
Here are a few questions:
1. Is the legal axiom "no one may be the judge of their own case," true?
2. Did the authors of 3rd Council of Baltimore. #126 (permission to divorce or grave sin) mean for it to be "symbolic" as well? Has human nature or marriage changed since the council?
3. Is said legislation null and void simply because everybody ignores it?
CCC 2384 says that it is a "grave offense against natural law" for spouses to break the "contract" to live together. Not good.
4. Since No-Fault divorce is almost always a grave offense because one spouse forces an injustice on the other, shouldn't all the tribunal websites be amended to explain that actually not 100% of divorcees are eligible for Communion without a firm purpose of amendment? (return to common life or obtain separation decree from bishop)
Clay Rossi has put his finger on the elephant in the living room - marriage is a contract and a bond. The "no permission required to divorce" crowd focuses on the bond only, while confusing mere civil effects with those which flow directly from the essence of marriage. Planned Parenthood does not want to talk about the baby and Ed Peters does not want to talk about the contract, but Pope Leo XIII does. For a Catholic divorce lawyer to do things right, it must be judged by the Church which spouse is acting justly and which one is not (CCC 2386). Today we have Catholic marriage near-anarchy and plenty of decrees of nullity to bury the "problem."
-John Farrell
No comments:
Post a Comment