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

Leila Miller / Catholic Answers attempt to baptize No-Fault

I’m sure Leila Miller is a wonderful person and her new book is an
excellent and much needed aid in the war on divorce, but her fundamental
error in her latest Catholic Answers divorce piece perpetuates the
revolution she seeks to counter. She clearly communicates that the
decision to divorce may be judged by private conscience when in fact the
Church teaches that only public authority can permit a civil divorce action since marriage pertains to the public good.

Intentions alone cannot determine legitimacy when engaging in a
canonically public act that directly affects another. Civil divorce uses state power to physically counteract irrevocable contract rights to the conjugal life. If one spouse is to use this power against the other licitly, it can only be done by permission of the local bishop if he foresees “a civil sentence is not contrary to divine law” (c. 1692) - AKA concluding “after having weighed the special circumstances” that civil divorce is the “only possible way” (CCC 2383). To act without permission is “grave sin.” (3rd Council of Baltimore n.126). Leila knows permission is required to divorce, but neglected this key fact in her article. She and others seem more comfortable with a “divorce malo / bishop bueno” stance. Church politics keeps almost all from admitting the truth about bishop’s complete abandonment of separation justice in the United States. Until this lawlessness is remedied, the vicious divorce revolution will continue unabated no matter how many books are written.

Her citing separation canons 1151-55 is good, but without their proper
explanation and because of their institutional denial, they amount to nothing more than an American loophole/workaround. This need for due process and justice flows from the essence of marriage. “Spouses have the [grave] duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them.” (c. 1151). A prolonged/permanent separation can’t be legitimate unless by decree of local ordinary.

It is an axiom of law that no one may be the judge of their own case, but
Leila omits this fact when she says: “A dear friend of mine saw no other
possible option but to file for civil divorce from her husband of many
years..”I wonder if the husband, kids & relatives shared that conclusion?
Canon 1696 says “Cases concerning the separation of spouses also pertain to the public good; therefore the promoter of justice must always
take part in them..” IOW, the “divorce court” is supposed to take place on
Church property! Prolonged separation w/o due process is fundamentally unjust which is why No-Fault is always gravely immoral and fault must be established by the public authority beforehand.

Leila is saying if YOU unilaterally judge that your spouse & kids are to be subject to godless permanent state action, then that’s tolerable. This is tantamount to saying the defendant is not allowed any involvement in their own proceedings.

“Here’s an example of how this distinction plays out in real life:”
Because I did not intend to own your car, but merely judged that I had a
really good reason to drive it to Miami and back 2X w/o your consent, then that’s OK. Sorry about the interior..

During an abortion, the baby does not care what the intentions of the
mother are.

This is why Dr. Donald P. Asci, Professor of Theology, Franciscan
University while reflecting the words of John Paul II says “The immorality of divorce derives precisely from that choice and cannot be eliminated by any good intentions or circumstances accompanying the choice.” IOW, *No-Fault* is always evil, every time. Divorce w/ bishop’s permission is
simply state enforcement of a Church separation decree. This is the only type of “divorce” that can be tolerated. Pope Leo XIII said in Arcanum #30 - if you let divorce get out of the cage, it's all over. 2018 Catholic America gives divorce free range. Private conscience is not the arbiter.

If you think in your case that divorce is “the only possible way,” and you
have right intentions, the baptized still need one more thing - bishop’s
permission. Anything less simply perpetuates the status quo of “who are we to judge?”

This means no public justice, no law, no real contract and the innocent
suffer at the hands of good "intentions."

Leila asks “How can something be a grave offense against the natural law
(in other words, an intrinsic evil) and yet sometimes be morally licit? It
seems a contradiction.” That’s because it is. Civil divorce on own authority is ALWAYS intrinsic evil. One can only suspend contract rights with particular permission from the bishop (after canonical due process).

Leila answers “The answer lies in our language limitation. We are using
(and confusing) the same word, “divorce,” for two different concepts, two different intents, and two different courses of action.” No, only one course of action. Divorce = using state power to enforce a permanent separation of a family, every time, no matter what anyone’s intentions are.
The meaning of divorce on this level can be defined only by articulating the immediate effect intellectually grasped and willed by the person who chooses to divorce. (Asci)


Leila, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Get permission.

- John Farrell

10 Pre-Cana questions that are never asked

1. When spouses do not agree on whether to use NFP (periodic continence), who breaks the tie?

A. Agenesic NFP is immoral because it places the secondary ends of marriage as primary. (Casti 59). If there is serious reason to avoid pregnancy, then complete abstinence is the solution. "There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted." Casti Connubii 61

2. If there is a just reason to separate/divorce (with the bond remaining), what process makes the separation legitimate?

A. a separation decree from the local ordinary. 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." Still binding today.

3. Does an illegitimate separator remain a Catholic in good standing?

A. Yes, however publicly joining or separating apart from Church is manifest grave sin.

4. Does the Church govern the common conjugal life, or  does the state govern it?

A. Divine law + canon law. Canon 1059

5. Do you agree with St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of marital debt? http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm

A. "husband and wife are mutually bound to the payment of the marriage debt." Grave matter.

6.. Under what conditions does the wife not have to be submissive to her husband?

A. Submissive in all conditions, except when those are "inconsistent with Christian piety." - Trent  "if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife" - Casti Connubii

7. Under what conditions does the husband not have to love his wife?

A. He must love always, in headship and truth.

8. Is marriage based on Justice?

A. Yes. "Do not defraud" 1 Corinthians 7:5

9. What did Pope Leo XIII mean when he wrote "marriage is the contract itself" in Arcanum 23?

A. The marriage contract is the exchange of a right. “Marital consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children." Canon 1081.2 of 1917 code. The "good of the spouses" is not essential to consent (or annulment!). The essence of marriage is immutable.


10. Will we qualify for an annulment later?


A. Nope. Because the bonum coniugum (good of the spouses) is integral & perfective, but not essential to marriage, the only grounds for a defective consent annulment are 1. Ignorance of where babies come from 2. Mental derangement (insanity) 3. Physical impotence. PS - "good of the spouses" cannot be objectively consummated which is one reason it cannot be an object of consent. One cannot legally consent to what cannot be defined.

Catholic marriage separation, permission and sin.

Commentary on Canon 1153+1154

Can. 1153 gives one spouse the authority to separate on own authority if there is danger in waiting for the requisite permission from the local ordinary. Permission to continue living apart must then be ecclesiastically pursued, or the prolonged de facto separation becomes the grave sin of public abandonment, no matter how privately just the cause may be. Public/canonical abandoners are not eligible for Communion.

Canon 1154 says that the parents must provide for the children and educate them in the faith. Therefore, the separating spouse may sue on own authority only for emergency child support in civil court, but never for separation. No spouse may sue for separation ("divorce") w/o first obtaining the bishop's permission - or it's public grave sin.

Description: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."

This legislation remains in force per Canon 6.1n.2.