Does the Insrumentum Laboris consider fidelity in marriage a near impossible task? October 14, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Bai MacFarlane sent out an e-mail release this morning that got me thinking. Before I begin, I need to make something clear: like so many of the most problematic documents of Vatican II, the Instrumentum Laboris reads like a point – counterpoint, or statement of orthodoxy followed by a radical proposition which completely undermines the original statement. As an example, on the subject of divorce and remarriage, check out Instrumentum Laboris #59-60 (my emphasis):
59. The blessing and responsibility of a new family, sealed in the Church’s Sacrament of Matrimony, implies a willingness to be promoters and advocates, within the Christian community, of the general calibre of the covenant between man and woman in all areas of society, the procreation of children, the protection of the weakest in society and life in common. This willingness requires a responsibility which should be supported, recognized and appreciated.
<I snip out the strange second paragraph>
60. (24) The Church, a sure teacher and caring mother, recognizes that the only marriage bond for those who are baptized is sacramental and any breach of it is against the will of God. At the same time, the Church is conscious of the weakness of many of her children who are struggling in their journey of faith. “Consequently, without detracting from the evangelical ideal, they need to accompany with mercy and patience the eventual stages of personal growth as these progressively occur. […] A small step in the midst of great human limitations can be more pleasing to God than a life which outwardly appears in order and passes the day without confronting great difficulties. Everyone needs to be touched by the comfort and attraction of God’s saving love, which is mysteriously at work in each person, above and beyond their faults and failings”(GE, 44).
Let’s parse that just a bit. What sneering derision there is for the faithful, which this statement seems to assume are secret hypocrites, or at the very least just coasting on in their smug superiority! Everything from “At the same time” is oriented to refute what came before. Note the implication here is that divorce and remarriage can be a process of growth. Since when is abandoning a spouse and committing grievous sin indicative of anything positive? And of course we get the mercy mercy mercy irrespective of actions and totally discounting personal responsibility.
And that’s just one very small section. The Instrumentum is rife with this kind of contradictory message. Indeed, #61 seems to strongly imply that marriage is the ideal, but other forms of relationship (concubinage, serial fornication, etc) are not unworthy of respect/tolerance. #62 claims that those in these kinds of relationships “do good” in “caring for one another in love” so long as they are “of service to the community in which they live and work.” But how does one demonstrate “love” for someone that one simply uses for selfish pleasure, knowing full well that person is entirely replaceable and indeed will be replaced at some point?
I could go on at length. The Instrumentum Laboris – and I say this with due consideration – is a total disaster and an affront to 2000 years of Catholic Faith and practice. It is redolent of its creators, a narrow cabal of modernists under the direction of the very liberal Archbishop Forte and with significant input from Pope Bergoglio.
OK…….so on to Bai MacFarlane’s e-mail. Either I was unaware, or had forgotten, that canon law stipulates that Catholics who desire to seek a civil divorce must first obtain the permission of their local ordinary. This is obviously NOT the practice in the vast majority of dioceses in this country. In fact, standard practice in Dallas and almost all other dioceses is to demand civil divorce FIRST before any kind of Church involvement really begins. They want the marriage civilly dead and gone before souls jump on the annulment treadmill. Some interesting points:
Instrumentum Laboris §59 shows that parties to a marriage have the responsibility of maintaining the common life (that is, living together). When difficulties arise, discerning one’s obligations is not supposed to be done alone, but with the community so that each can assess and repair what was omitted or neglected. The Code of Canon Law §1692 shows that no one may file in the civil forum without first getting the bishop’s permission. Canon 1151 shows that parties are obligated to live together unless a morally legitimate reason excuses them……..
……….In the United States, many normal, decent Catholics have been defendants in no-fault divorce and carry the cross of the unjust separation decree that was forced on them and their children in the civil forum. It is time for the Church to reach out to marital abandoners who force no-fault divorce on their families and to the Catholic divorce lawyers who profited from it.
Catholic canon law forbids anyone from filing for civil divorce without having the bishop’s permission first. The marriage ceremony occurred in public in a Catholic Rite and civil divorce is not supposed to be sought on one’s own authority, without official, documented intervention of the Church. If dioceses implemented the canon laws, a spouse who is unhappy in his marriage should be pointed to spiritual advisors, counselors, programs, and mediators that have experience helping couples. If there was a situation in which one spouse was gravely abusive or committing adultery, the Church could instruct the family about the parameters of a separation plan that is in accord with divine law. [Instead…..and this is my opinion, but I do not believe I am alone in sharing it……the Church in the US in particular positively encourages family breakup are normalization of divorce by failing to enforce canon law and demanding civil divorce decrees before Church intervention into the marriage occurs.]
Erroneously, a number of diocesan personnel tell unhappy spouses that it is alright to petition for no-fault divorce in the civil forum.[It is SOP in almost every diocese] The civil forum purports to relieve a dissatisfied spouse of his obligation to maintain the common conjugal life, but this obligation is not a merely civil effect of marriage, so it should not be decided by the civil courts. Divorce courts also purport to have jurisdiction over financial obligations of one party toward the other, but the obligation to help one’s spouse is not a merely civil effect of marriage. This is part of the mutual help that is required of a spouse in the Church’s list of obligations of spouses toward each other. Further, parents have the duty and right to educate and raise their children and it is a violation of natural and divine law to forcibly separate children from a decent mother or father, just because the other parent wants to abandon the marriage.
And yet…….and yet, Francis’ Motu Proprio not only fast-tracks annulments, it enormously widens the circumstances under which a marriage may be judged to be invalid, including, incredibly, “lack of faith,” which, save for Our Lord and Lady, applied to EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER LIVED, AND EVER WILL!
Of course, the Instrumentum Laboris fails to mention Canon 1692. It is quite likely its authors are ignorant of it, as it is equally likely that the vast majority of bishops are, as well. Either that, or we have to conclude they simply choose to ignore it entirely. In fact, I am unaware of a single diocese in this nation that requires episcopal approval before civil divorce. I would be happy to be corrected.
The more I read the Instrumentum, the more depressed I become. It is a travesty of a document. And yet Synod fathers have been repeatedly informed, including by Pope Francis himself, that it is the ONLY basis for discussion at the Synod. Now tell me how that does not indicate his strong support for and at least tacit acceptance of its many enormous problems? You have to be willfully blind not to see who is driving this entire synodal process at this point. And yet some folks talk about the need to fire Fr. Rosica, as if he were the main problem, instead of the one who hired him.
Enjoy that corner you’ve painted yourself into.