ROBERT SISCOE ERRORS ON DIVORCE
& REMARRIAGE IN
CANON LAW & MAGISTERIUM
Fr. Paul Kramer B.Ph., S.T.B.,
M.Div., S.T.L. (Cand.)
I have read the relevant Latin texts
of Celestine III, and of Innocent III. They were ruling on
two different cases.
Celestine III ruled that the husband
who defected from the faith out of hatred for his wife, thereby forfeited his
matrimonial rights, so that the wife was not bound to return to her first
husband, but was free to enter the monastic life, even with the husband
opposed; and that the husband could marry the former infidel wife (the second
wife), converted to the Catholic faith, only after thedeath of the first wife.
Innocent III ruled on a case
referred to him by Bishop Hugo of Ferrara, that the wife of a man who defected
into heresy could not remarry. Two entirely different cases. Celestine did not
rule that the woman could divorce and remarry, but only that she was not bound
to return to the first husband, and
was free to enter religious life,
even against the opposition of her husband, who had forfeited his matrimonial
rights. Celestine did make the error of basing his correct ruling on an
erroneous interpretation of the Pauline Privilege, and thus condoned the
woman's second marriage
--
however, his error was not expressed
in a magisterial teaching, but was only an erroneous opinion on a point not yet
settled by the magisterium,
expressed in a legal case, upon
which he correctly ruled that the woman
was no longer bound to return to the
first husband. He expressed an erroneous opinion that the woman's second
marriage was legitimate, but that was not his RULING, but only an erroneous
basis for a CORRECT RULING that the woman was free to enter religion against
the will of her first husband.
Siscoe's claim that, "The case
eventually reached Pope Celestine III (d. 1198), who considered the matter and
judged that the woman should remain in her second adulterous union, rather than
returning to her true husband", is utterly false. Likewise, Siscoe's claim
that Celestine TAUGHT the error in his
magisterium [1] is false, and
likewise, his claim that Gregory IX incorporated into Canon Law [2] a ruling
allowing divorce and remarriage is absurdly nonsensical, and only demonstrates
how utterly incompetent he is in Canon Law and Theology.
Celestine’s use of the expression
“non videtur nobis” clearly indicates his intention to state an opinion, and
not to impart a teaching.
[1] "The erroneous judgment of
Pope Celestine highlights the limitations of papal infallibility by showing
that a true Pope can, as part of his teaching office (Magisterium), render a
judgment that contradicts divine revelation and confirms a person in objective
mortal sin."
[2] "Celestine’s Error
Incorporated into Canon Law" : "The limitations of Papal
Infallibility is further highlighted by the fact that the error of Pope
Celestine was later included in the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (known as
Quinque Libri Decretalium), which was the first collection of Canon Law
promulgated by a Pope for the
universal Church." And, "this non-infallible papal judgment confirmed
a woman in the objective state of adultery."
Siscoe’s claim that Celestine’s
error was “incorporated into Canon Law” is absolutely false.
That ruling of Celestine III, in
which the erroneous opinion was expresses was excluded from the Decretals by
order of Gregory IX . That portion of text which was excluded pertains to the
“partes decis æ”, the parts that were
cut out by Gregory IX.
In the Richter-Friedberg edition of the
Decretals (DECRETALIUM COLLECTIONES – EDITIO LIPSIENSIS SECUNDA), those
“excluded parts” were re-inserted into the text by the editors , and indicated
by
Italics , as the editors explain on
page XLV:
“Ut vero quae inserui a Gregoriano
textu discerni possent, illa italicis quos vocant typis exprimenda curavi.
”
A detailed and precise presentation
on
this matter is made by Fr. Anthony
Cekada
Although I disagree with Fr. Cekada
on
the issue of Sedevacantism, and some
of his theological opinions;
in this question he is entirely correct.
The page of Gregory IX's Decretals,
quoting
Celestine III's ruling:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/
collections/cul/texts/ldpd_6029936_002/pages/ldpd_60299
36_002_00000336.html?toggle=image&menu=maximize&top=199px&left=70px
Innocent III's ruling:
Quanto te magis novimus in canonico
iure peritum, tanto fraternitatem tuam amplius in Domino commendamus, quod in
dubiis quaestionum articulis ad sedem apostolicam recurris, quae disponente Domino
cunctorum fidelium mater est et magistra, ut opinio, quam in eis quondam
habueras, dum alios
canonici iuris peritiam edoceres,
vel corrigatur per sedem apostolicam vel probetur. Sane tua nobis fraternitas
suis literis intimavit, quod, altero coniugum ad haeresim transeunte, qui
relinquitur ad secunda vota desidera
t convolare et filios procreare,
quod, utrum possit fieri de iure, per tuas nos
duxisti literas consulendos. Nos
igitur consultationi tuae de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio respondentes,
distinguimus, licet quidam praedecessor noster sensisse aliter videatur, an ex
duobus infidelibus alter ad fidem catholicam convertatur, vel ex duobus
fidelibus alter labatur in haeresim, vel
decidat in gentilitatis errorem. Si
enim alter infidelium coniugum ad fidem catholicam convertatur, altero vel
nullo modo, vel saltem non sine blasphemia divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat
ad mortale peccatum, ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si
voluerit, vota transibit. Et in hoc casu
intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: “Si
infidelis discedit, discedat. Frater enim vel soror non est servituti subiectus
in huiusmodi,” et canonem etiam, in quo dicitur, quod “contumelia creatoris
solvit ius matrimonii circa eum, qui relinquitur.” Si vero alter fidelium
coniugum vel labatur in haeresim, vel
transeat ad gentilitatis errorem,
non credimus, quod in hoc casu is, qui relinquitur, vivente altero possit
ad secundas nuptias convolare, licet
in hoc casu maior appareat contumelia creatoris. Nam etsi matrimonium verum
quidem inter infideles exsistat, non tamen est ratum. Inter fideles autem verum
quidem et ratum exsistit, quia sacramentum fidei, quod semel est admissum,
nunquam amittitur; sed
ratum efficit coniugii sacramentum,
ut ipsum in coniungibus illo durante perduret. Nec obstat, quod a quibusdam
forsan obiicitur, quod fideli
s relictus non debeat iure suo sine
culpa privari, quum in multis
casibus hoc contingat, ut si alter
coniugum incidatur. Per hanc autem responsionem quorundam malitiae obviatur,
qui in odium coniugum, vel quando sibi invicem displicerent, si eas possent intali
casu dimittere, simularent haeresim, ut ab ipsa nubentibus coniugibus
resilirent. Per hanc ipsam responsionem illa solvitur quaestio, qua quaeritur,
utrum ad eum, qui [vel] ab haeresi vel infidelitate revertitur, is, qui
permansit in fide, redire cog
atur. [Dat. Lat. Kal. Maii 1199.]
Pope Innocent III: On the Bond of
Marriage and the
Pauline Privilege [From the letter
"Quanto te magis"
to Hugo, Bishop of Ferrara,
May 1, 1199]
405 Your brotherhood has announced
that with one of the spouses passing over to heresy the one who is left desires
to rush into second vows and to procreate children, and you have thought that
we ought to be consulted through your letter as to whether this can be done
under the law. We, therefore, responding to your inquiry regarding the common
advice of our brothers make a distinction, although indeed our predecessor
seems to have thought otherwise, whether of two unbelievers one is converted to
the Catholic Faith, or of two believers one lapses into heresy or falls into
the error of paganism. For if one of the unbelieving spouses is converted to
the Catholic faith , while the other either is by no means willing to live with
him or at least not without blaspheming the divine name or so as to drag him
into mortal sin, the one who is left, if
he wishes, will pass over to second vows. And in this case we understand what the
Apostle says: "If the unbeliever depart, let him depart: for the brother
or sister is not subject to servitude in (cases) of this kind" [1 Cor.7:15].
And likewise (we understand) the canon in which it is said that "insult
to the Creator dissolves the law of marriage for him who is left." [from Isaac406
But if one of the believing spouses either slip into heresy or lapse into the
error of paganism, we do notbelieve that in this case he who is left, as long
as the other is living, can enter into a second marriage; although in this case a
greater insult to the Creator is evident. Although indeed true matrimony exists
between unbelievers, yet it is not ratified; between believers, however, a true
and ratified marriage exists, because the sacrament of faith, which once was
admitted, is never lost, but makes the sacrament of marriage
ratified so that it itself lasts between married persons as long as the sacrament
of faith endures.
Summary: 1) Quanto te affirms that
true marriage does exist among unbelievers, (notwithstanding the fact that they
do not regard marriage as indissoluble.)
2) Quanto te affirms that a marriage
between believers is "ratified" because of the "sacrament of
faith."
A ratified marriage remains even if
one of the partners should renounce their faith.
3) The Pauline Privilege is
affirmed and the grounds permitting the convert to remarry are expanded to include
not only a) convert who have been deserted by the unbelieving spouse, (as per
Paul) but also, b) a convert who would be subjected to blasphemy by an unbelieving
spouse who remains, or, c) a convert who would be led into mortal sin by a
spouse who remains.
How the unbeliever's blasphemy or
drawing to mortal sin amounted to the forteiture of the unbelievers marriage
and how these acts were to be proved were not determined by these decretals.
The implication of course was
significant: a valid, consummated marriage between Christian and unbeliever was
dissoluble.
