Rose Sweet, Leila Miller - Partners In Crime

Rose Sweet says "you may decide on your own authority..to file for civil divorce"
https://www.catholicsdivorce.com/Is-it-a-sin-to-divorce

Leila Miller condones when "A dear friend of mine saw no other possible option but to file for civil divorce [on own authority] from her husband."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-does-the-church-tolerate-divorce

The Catholic Church says: Can. XII If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema. – Council of Trent

USA Particular legislation says:

"We command all (i.e. baptized) married persons that they must not go to the civil courts to obtain a separation from bed and board without previously receiving permission from the ecclesiastical authority. Should anyone attempt this, let him know that he incurs the guilt of grave sin and that he is to be punished as the bishop shall decide." The 3rd Council of Baltimore decree #126 

Can. 1059 The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage. 

Citing Acta Apostolicae Sedis from 1936, in his Doctoral Dissertation, Rev. Marion L Gibbons explains that even when “there is a question of an alleged nullity of the marriage, private authority is not recognized as an adequate basis for establishing a legitimate separation.”(1)  Additionally, citing Acta Apostolicae Sedis from 1933 and 1934, Gibbons explains that separation of spouses is not a merely civil effect of marriage.

Can.  1671 Marriage cases of the baptized belong to the ecclesiastical judge by proper right. 

Can. 1401 By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates: 1/ cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters.

When Rose and Leila teach the heresy that prolonged/permanent private separation is not intrinsically evil, they enable business as usual Catholic no-fault divorce because virtually all spouses "know" they are the innocent party.  Divorce on own authority necessarily makes a Catholic no longer in good standing. This hard truth must be taught because we don't want Rose and Leila to be "anathema."

And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Mark 9:42

"Essential everything" = virtual annulment on demand

Open letter to Bishop Olmsted re USA divorce

Your Excellency, in your letter below you state that there is no particular American legislation pertaining to Catholics seeking civil divorce  What about 3rd Council of Baltimore #126?



Can.  1692 §1. Unless other provision is legitimately made in particular places, a decree of the diocesan bishop or a judicial sentence can decide the personal separation of baptized spouses according to the norm of the following canons.    

The 3rd Council of Baltimore decree #126 states that: "We command all (i.e. baptized) married persons that they must not go to the civil courts to obtain a separation from bed and board without previously receiving permission from the ecclesiastical authority. Should anyone attempt this, let him know that he incurs the guilt of grave sin and that he is to be punished as the bishop shall decide." 

Canon 6.1 n.2 & n.3 of the 1983 code indicate that this particular legislation w/ penalty enacted by the Bishops of the United States of America is still lawfully binding in the USA. Is that correct?

Sincerely yours in Christ,

John Farrell - Seattle

Why your bishop teaches divorce heresy

For Catholics, “divorce” can only mean separation from bed and board (mensa et thoro).

If your bishop says “divorce is purely a civil matter,”

If your bishop says “divorce is up to the spouses themselves and does not involve the Church,”

If your bishop says “divorce alone does not restrict one from Communion,”

He is teaching heresy.

Why?

Because it's heresy to deny the divine law of Canons 8 and 12 from Trent - which state that

cases involving the separation of spouses with the bond remaining belong exclusively to

ecclesiastical judges.

In his canonical thesis: “The Separation of the Spouses with the Bond Remaining, Historical and

Canonical Study with Pastoral Applications,” Juraj Kamas explains how Pope Pius VI issued an

authentic interpretation:

On September 16 [1788], Pius VI sent a well-known letter, Deessemus nobis, to the Bishop

of Mottola in the Kingdom of Naples. In it the pope, as Supreme Legislator of the Church

made an authentic interpretation of the twelfth canon of session 24 of the Council of Trent.

He denied the civil claims over Christian marriage, insisting on the exclusive right of the

Church to intervene in marital cases, including the separation of consorts. Pius VI explained

in some detail the range of the judicial competence of the Church. He wrote that it

embraces all cases without any exception or limitation. These cases pertain to the

ecclesiastical judges in such a way that they cannot be substituted by civil judges, nor

can they delete their power to them. This exclusive right eliminates also every possibility

of civil judges of civil judges sharing in some way in the judicial power of the Church.

A supporting argument to the papal claims can be found in the fact that marriage has never

been understood as an institution of man, but it is a creation of God. Marriage, as a

natural institution, has been raised to the status of a sacrament, and Christ, with

his divine authority, has committed the regulation and defense of marriage to the

Church. Consequently, the marriage between two baptized partners is itself a sacrament,

and both the contract and the sacrament are inseparable65.

Therefore, a union of two Christians cannot be subjected to the civil government because

of its very nature, but falls under the exclusive control of the Church.

65 «Verba enim canonis ita generalia sunt, omnes ut causas comprehendat et

complectantur. Spiritus vero sive ratio legis adeo late patet, ut nullum exceptioni aut limitationi locum relinquat. Si enim hae causae non

alia ratione pertinent ad unum

Pope Pius VI, Letter Deessemus nos, September 16, 1788 (Migne, TheologiaeCursusCompletus [Paris, 1839-1845], XXV, p. 694).

The idea that the state has competence to judge the separation (divorce) while separately

the Church can handle the annulment is a heresy also condemned by

Leo XIII in Arcanum 23 and Pius XI in Casti Connubii 78 as well as in Pius IX Syllabus of Errors.
That separations are a matter of

divine law is reflected also in canons 1059 and 1692.

The act of separating without permission of the Church is a

manifest (public) grave sin.

For the bishop to teach that one need not involve Church

authority to maintain separation/divorce - is heresy.

Ironically, for the bishop to teach this error is worse than the underlying act (divorce extra

ecclesiam). It makes sense though. Canons 8 and 12 from Trent "are to be believed by

divine and catholic faith" and “all [Catholics] are therefore bound to shun any contrary

doctrines.” (Canon 750)

Any Catholic who publicly proposes such contrary doctrines commits heresy.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which

must be believed by divine and catholic faith.

So maintaining separation without permission is grave sin and clearly wrong. But

teaching others the error is far worse and constitutes heresy. So bishops who teach

heresy about maintaining “private” separation act worse than guilty divorcers.

When they inform all their divorced subjects that maintaining separation on private

authority means they remain eligible for Communion,

bishops are in big trouble because Communion is only for the innocent spouse and
innocence of moving party can't be privately judged.

“For no crime is there heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the

unholy or irreligious use [of the Holy Eucharist.]”—Council of Trent, VI