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
