"Crimen": Canon Lawyer again Raises Schiavo Issue

I am not a Canon Lawyer. I have some issues with the Tribunals in the USA regarding Nullity Decisions, and would not accept any Null decision without appealing to the Roman Rota as the Court of Second Opinion.

I cannot and will not lie in order to fill out forms that are currently being used that would force me to state that I believe my marriage to be Null, thereby giving the 'advantage' to the original Petitioner of divorce in no fault unilateral forced divorce once again. Therefore, I would seem to be put into the same position of little or no defense once again by the one who chose to abandon the vows made before God and mankind long ago.

However, at least in the Tribunals, the EXPECTATION and ASSUMPTION is SUPPOSED to be that our marriage is VALID. (Which is why I would not accept a Court of Second Opinion from the US Tribunals, but would seek to go directly to the Rota....).

I have, therefore, a few issues with some things that members or former members of the US Tribunals have said on Nullity, including by this author. That being said, he still has more education in this field and probably other areas than this humble member of the Church Universal.

Tonight, he has sent out a VERY interesting update to his blog which is an area that I have no knowledge of at all, but needs to be addressed.

I direct you to the blog of Dr. Edward Peters for several items to read, two of which are here and here.

He is speaking of 'crimen' (and has spoken of it previously) in the Schiavo case relating to Michael and the Church. He raises serious questions that ultimately may have bearing on salvation. It is a strong point, and is not something to be sneezed at by anyone truly wanting to be considered Catholic.

It has nothing to do with Divorce, but a lot to do with Validity.

What IS Crimen?

• Crimen - An impediment to marriage caused by one party previously conspiring to marry (upon condition of death of spouse) while still married

By attempting a marriage to Jodi Centonze in the Catholic Church, Michael Schiavo IS subject to the Canon Law of our Church. It also raises questions once again that I have had about Bishop Lynch and the Diocese, etc which are not completely germaine, but also not completely off topic. (Recall that Bishop Lynch did not ever go to see Terri, nor issue a direct statement defending Life as did Bishop Vasa, now Archbishop Burke, JPII and others from the Vatican and Magisterium).

Dr Peters had brought this issue up long before Terri died, having published his article in THIS ROCK January, 2004.

Just a part of what Edward Peters wrote, with a strong encouragement to follow the links above and read the rest at his site:

1) The original parties must have been validly married. This fact that can be presumed, however, whenever there is a public celebration of a Catholic wedding.

2) At the time of the killing, the surviving spouse must have been intending to enter marriage with a specific person once free of the prior marriage bond. This is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Evidence such as positive statements about wanting to marry another or behavior consistent with future marriage plans, can be used to show this intention to marry. By the way, the fact that one might have multiple motives for wanting to cause the death of one's spouse (say, also the desire to save money on the disabled spouse’s health care), would not obviate the desire-to-marry motive.

3) The death of one spouse must be brought about by the surviving spouse. This does not mean, though, that the survivor spouse needs to have "struck the deadly blow". Commentators agree that a death brought about at the behest of the survivor qualifies for imposition of the impediment. Even if, therefore, spousal death came about with the approval a civil court and no civil liability could be attached to the instigator, one would still be burdened by the canonical impediment if, under the Church's moral analysis, one is found to have been morally responsible for the death of one's former spouse.

Once incurred, the impediment of crimen never ceases on its own. The mere passage of time will not erase it, not even if, sadly, after many years, people more or less forget about the dead spouse. Pastors cannot grant a dispensation from this impediment, nor can bishops. Even if a cleric is found to witness the wedding of one laboring under the impediment of crimen, such an attempt at marriage is null and of no effect in the eyes of the Church. Only the Apostolic See can dispense from the impediment of crimen (Canon 1078 § 2, n. 2), and commentators agree that the Holy See only very rarely considers such dispensations. Going back at least a hundred years, they can find no example of a dispensation from the impediment of crimen being granted where the fact of one's moral responsibility in the death of a former spouse is public knowledge.

In sum, if, in order to be free to marry a third party, one spouse succeeds in ending the other spouse's life, even through a civilly-approved death by euthanasia, and then goes on to attempt that marriage, such a person, besides facing other moral and even canonical consequences for the spousal death, attempts the subsequent marriage without the blessings of or recognition by the Catholic Church.

Related Tags: Crimen, Catholic, Michael Schiavo, Marriage Impediment, Canon Law