![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.betrayedcatholics.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/AdobeStock_331544102-scaled.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
+St. Evaristus+<\/strong><\/p>\n (Please see the response to attacks on this blog post in the Addendum of Oct. 27.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Comments on the last blog on marriage woes have become numerous and so it seems more practical to publish a second article to address these observations. Excerpts from the comments submitted particularly by one reader below will be followed by my response.<\/p>\n Reader:<\/u><\/strong> \u201c\u2026The issue here is not whether spouses in unhappy marriages such as those you mention can leave their husbands or wives when tension reaches a high level. The issue is whether they can walk away and marry again. In sad cases of serious and irreparable<\/span> division, the Church has always approved separation. One does not need to have studied specific canon laws to know of the Church’s mercy and realism<\/span> on this point.\u201d<\/p>\n Response<\/u><\/strong>: Here you are presuming that the marriage was validly contracted<\/em><\/strong> and that the spouses can possibly reconcile their differences in the future. Of course the Church has always allowed separation; this should go without saying. But we are not just talking about tensions here, but very real moral and spiritual calamities \u2014 including possible loss of faith \u2014 that afflict many of those believing themselves to be validly married. As another reader has also pointed out, the very fact that such calamities occur, that there are \u201cirreparable divisions,\u201d is only backhanded proof that the graces that should have been received in a Catholic\u00a0<\/em>sacramental union<\/em><\/strong> were never received; the marriage was not valid, hence not sacramental. The Church\u2019s \u201cmercy and realism\u201d extends to the sacramental reality<\/em><\/strong> of things, don\u2019t you think?<\/p>\n The entire conception of marriage as a sacrament has been lost. Also lost is the very serious obligation the Church has to regulate these marriages among her validly baptized children and determine their conformity to Divine law. She does this by issuing laws. In his Mystici Corporis<\/em>, Pope Pius XII makes it a condition of Church membership to be subject to these laws. He writes in another address: \u201cClerics and laity may not exempt themselves from this discipline; rather all should be concerned to obey it\u2026\u201d (The Church and its Powers of Sanctifying and Ruling<\/em>, Nov. 2, 1954).\u00a0 Perhaps in the past there were lawful pastors to explain the laws regarding marriage, but we no longer enjoy that luxury. So do we educate ourselves or rush blindly into a vocation that binds us for life? Without the graces we need to fulfill our state in life, how can we possibly hope to be worthy spouses, parents, grandparents? The Church determines \u2014 and has the strict RIGHT<\/em><\/strong> to determine \u2014 when those graces are received, because Our Lord Jesus Christ is the dispenser of those precious graces!<\/p>\n The chain of Divine jurisdiction established by Christ, flowing from the pope to the bishops and finally to the priests by way of delegation, is the unquestionable guarantee that these graces are rightly received. As proven elsewhere on this site, unless this chain is maintained in all the sacraments, save that of emergency baptism (and in exceptional cases marriage, which is a natural right), the sacrament is not valid simply because the Church, commissioned by Christ to bind and loose, says <\/em><\/strong>it is not valid. It was presumed even in Can. 1098 marriages that whenever possible those marriages would later be blessed by the proper parish or missionary priest and entered into the parish register.<\/p>\n Reader<\/u><\/strong>: \u201cBut you seem to be suggesting that through inculpable ignorance<\/span> regarding what appears to be a legalism<\/span>, a person who has enough devotion to the Church to seek to marry within it can watch a spouse, or presumed spouse, not only leave, but act as if the marriage never took place and seek a new spouse. Is this truly just? It seems so pharisaical<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n Response<\/u><\/strong>: First let\u2019s address inculpable ignorance. This is something that must be proven to exist,<\/em><\/strong> not assumed. The 19th<\/sup> century Scottish bishop, George. Hay, in his classic work The Sincere Christian<\/em> sets down the requirements for the existence of invincible ignorance: “For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him.\u00a0 For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage…Such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator\u2026 He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction.<\/p>\n \u201cFor whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he does not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary<\/em><\/strong>; for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” When these standards are applied, I think it is clear that many do not qualify as inculpable. The means to dispel this ignorance have existed since the 1980s. Few use their best endeavors to find it, in my experience anyway. They will research a million things on the Internet, but not this. The problem here is not whether they were ignorant but whether they were Catholic. Those marrying in Traditionalist sects are schismatics. Until they leave those sects and renounce them they cannot be considered to have married in the Church.<\/p>\n Secondly<\/em><\/strong>, we proceed to \u201cwhat appears to be legalism,\u201d but, when examined more closely, is really the veiled practice of liberal Catholicism. I object to the term legalism<\/em> because it is a common accusation made by Traditionalists. Wikipedia defines it as: \u201c\u2026A usually pejorative term [pejorative meaning it is used to deprecate or demean] referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy<\/em><\/strong>, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d We will address the last sentence here because it explains everything we really need to know about legalism.<\/p>\n In an article printed in the May 1965 edition of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review<\/em> by one Fr. Robert G. Wesselmann, J.C.L., (\u201cCanon Law: Criticisms and Reactions\u201d). Wesselmann begins by saying: \u201cWhen Pope John XXIII announced plans for an Ecumenical Council in 1959, he immediately indicated that one goal would be revision of the Code of Canon Law. At first canonists thought of revision merely in terms of tidying up the present Code \u2014 eliminating inconsistencies in terminology, incorporating laws enacted since 1917 and changing a few specific laws\u2026in accordance with Conciliar decrees. Now even canonists are having second thoughts about the place of law in the mission of the Church<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n Wesselmann effectively dilutes all authority of the hierarchy in the Church, pretending the laity are able and qualified to decide for themselves on moral matters without the strictures of \u201clegalism.\u201d <\/em><\/strong>He writes: \u201cCanon Law must be partially blamed, at least by defect, for the legalism<\/em><\/strong> which the liturgists decry\u2026 To be able to do away with the present system<\/em><\/strong>, we would need greater emphasis on equity (justice tempered by fairness, moderation, mercy) in enacting and enforcing laws and more frequent exercise of the virtue of epikeia <\/em><\/strong>by the subjects of the law\u2026For the subjects of law, it means willingness to apply the law in concrete circumstances, not according to its letter but according to its spirit\u2026\u201d He wishes to leave the determination of this \u201cequity\u201d to the average layperson and encourages \u201cthe rejection of constant readiness to place any and every perplexity before one\u2019s superiors\u2026The present penal section of the Code\u2026is needlessly complicated and might be virtually abolished<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d as it was in effect when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued.<\/p>\n So cries of legalism can be directly traced to the liturgical renewal crowd that led to the institution of the Novus Ordo and to Traditionalists and their adulation of epikeia!<\/em><\/strong> Isn\u2019t this ample proof that both these two organizations are really just two sides of the same coin? They have been very clever in obscuring the many things they have in common with the Novus Ordo, in order to appear to be the perpetual foes of the anti-Church. So this may come as a surprise to those who are not aware of the extent of Traditionalists’ true affinity with the church in Rome.<\/p>\n Thirdly<\/em><\/strong>, many Traditionalists over the years have tried to label those insisting that Canon Law is binding on the faithful as Pharisees. They feel that upholding the law and advocating for its strict application in our present circumstances seems unjust<\/em><\/strong>. But the term pharisaical<\/em><\/strong> is often misapplied because it is misunderstood. Christ explains this while addressing the Pharisees as follows: \u201c\u2026You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition<\/em><\/strong>. Hypocrites, well did Isaias prophesy of you, saying, \u2018This people honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.\u2019 But in vain they do worship me, teaching doctrines and the commandments of men\u201d (Matt. 15:7-9). That the Hebrews of Jesus\u2019 time truly believed their elders\u2019 teachings were at least equal to the Scriptures is confirmed by the later comments of Jewish rabbis on the Talmud: \u201cThe Scriptures are water; the Mishnah, wine; but the Gemara, spiced wine.\u201d<\/p>\n Rev. Leo Haydock comments: \u201cThe Pharisees pretended the greatest exactitude even in the smallest commands of the law, when the observance of them could impress the people with a favorable idea of their sanctity; whereas they omitted the more essential precepts of the law<\/em><\/strong>, when it did not incur them the praise of men.\u201d The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: \u201cTogether with the Pharisees they are represented in the Gospels as being very ambitious of honour (Matthew 23:2-7, Mark 12:38-40; Luke 11:43, 45, 46; 20:46), and as making void the weightier precepts of the Law by their perverse interpretations by means of which they had gradually laid a most heavy burden upon the people<\/em><\/strong>. They are also rebuked by Christ because of the undue importance ascribed by them to the \u2018traditions <\/em><\/strong>of the elders.\u2019\u201d Therefore the Pharisees were following their OWN<\/em><\/strong> laws, not God\u2019s laws, as Christ Himself notes above. Likewise, Traditionalists take it upon themselves to basically dismiss Canon Law, relying on their own interpretations rather than those of the lawgiver as the law demands. This negates all they do under Pope Pius XII\u2019s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis<\/a>, <\/em>governing interregnums.<\/p>\n Reader:<\/u><\/strong> \u201cAll unloved spouses in some sense suffer for the glory of the institution of marriage, which though it may bring extraordinary suffering to some brings happiness, security and well-being to many more\u2026 To the Catholic, who does not equate happiness with an absence of pain, it can be very consoling.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, we live in a world where because of a high degree of social isolation and the easy availability of divorce, the unspoken traditions that once guided people, the strategies by which a lack of companionship or love in marriage could be overcome by building separate, independent lives and friendships while remaining together, have been largely lost. There is now simply one solution and that is ending the marriage and looking to establish a new one.\u201d<\/p>\n Response<\/u><\/strong>: It IS<\/em><\/strong> a privilege indeed to suffer for the glory of the institution of marriage provided it is a valid marriage.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0Would any of these Catholics have consented to be married had they known that the person presumably performing the marriage could not officially witness the conveying of the necessary graces and was not acting validly? I hardly think so. IF<\/em><\/strong> someone sees that praying at home is their only option today and realize that they did not marry validly before a lawful pastor, it is easily remedied under Can. 1098. If they adopt the pray-at-home position, and truly wish to live a Catholic life but are needlessly suffering under intolerable obstacles to their faith and mental well-being, then they cannot be and must not be seen as \u201cwalking out on their marriage,\u201d when the Church says it was never a marriage to begin with. <\/em><\/strong>Nor should this necessarily be done with the intent to find a new husband or wife, although this cannot be excluded. They are free to marry, but in this wicked world, finding a new partner and starting over is a very daunting task, a task that some today choose not to pursue. Still, the Church considers marriage preferable to the sins of impurity that could result, especially among those prone to such sins.<\/p>\n Provided that the Church\u2019s laws governing marriage are followed, those contracting marriage confer the graces of the Sacrament on each other. The Church has the strict right to determine the binding nature of these laws. In a 1946 address entered under Can. 2314 on freedom of conscience and the objects of judicial jurisdiction (Canon Law Digest<\/em>, Vol. III), Pope Pius XII wrote the following on the hardships facing married couples following WWII: \u201cWhat a degree of courage, of self-denial, of patience; what a treasure of loving mutual trust, what a spirit of Christian faith were required in order to keep intact their plighted faith\u2026 The motherly heart of the Church bleeds at the sight of the unspeakable anguish of so many of her children. To come to their aid, She spares no effort and carries her condescension to its extreme limit. This extreme limit is solemnly formulated in Canon 1118 of the Code of Canon Law: \u2018Marriage which is sacramental <\/em><\/strong>and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power nor by any cause save death.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Note above the word sacramental.<\/em><\/strong> Who alone were able to (administer or) witness the Sacraments? Those who can be rightly identified, of course, as lawful pastors, rightly commissioned by the Church as such. Does the Church consider marriages between Catholics, (or where one party is Catholic at least), by one not delegated by the Church sacramental? Not according to Can. 1094. Therefore even if consummated, it is still not considered valid. And this same Canon offers the exception of Canon 1098. But how could Can. 1098 be invoked unless one first realized there are no lawful pastors left and they must invoke it? It cannot take effect automatically while the parties still remain outside the Church! Since Novus Ordo and Traditionalist pseudo- clergy and followers cannot validly convey sacraments, how could such a marriage be sacramental? One is either within the Church and obeys Her laws or they are not. Those wishing to be truly Catholic have a strict right to receive the graces issuing from a valid matrimonial contract, valid as defined by the Church. This we learn from Richard Cardinal Cushing:<\/p>\n \u201cMatrimony is a sacrament which a priest cannot administer. At the marriage ceremony he is merely the authorizing witness<\/em><\/strong>. The bride and groom are the ministers of the Sacrament. Since the groom confers the Sacrament on the bride, the first gift he gives her as his wife is an increase of sanctifying grace which is the greatest gift even an omnipotent God Himself can give, and so the bride to the groom. Such a gift is infinitely more precious than the most expensive watch or ring. When God instituted marriage, He had a twofold purpose: the propagation and education of children and the mutual help and comfort of man and woman in their closely associated life. To achieve that purpose steadily through a lifetime together the husband and wife need direct and immediate help from God. The effect of the sacrament is not just for a day. It is for a lifetime. God stands ready to give that help. When the couple receives the sacrament, they receive a title or right to the following actual graces<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\nCatholic couples have a <\/strong>RIGHT<\/em><\/strong> to receive matrimonial graces <\/strong><\/h3>\n