I'm just returning to Blogdom after the Canadian election and the first things that hits me is Kathy Shaidle's following protest about Michael Schiavo attempting a new marriage in the Catholic Church. Yes Kathy, I understood how you feel. It's similar to how I felt during the election every time a pro-abort Catholic politician received Holy Communion.
With this in mind, a debate arose between my colleague Dr. Ed Peters who states that canon law would not permit Michael to attempt this second marriage in the Catholic Church and my fellow Terri-culture-warrior Fr. Rob Johansen who says there is very little a pastor can do in this type of case to refuse the marriage.
For the record, I understand where Fr. Rob is coming from and I very much appreciate what he did to help Terri, her family, and Monsignor through this whole sordid affair, but in terms of canonical interpretation I must side with Ed Peters. Like Kathy Shaidle, I believe this marriage is a sham.
The law is clear: "One who, desirous of marrying a specific third party, is the mandans behind a current spouse's death, incurs a canonical impediment known as crimen" (1983 CIC 1090 ยง 1).
This is a scandal. Even if a dispensation was granted from the Holy See, which we do not know, Mr. Schiavo should not have been allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church without some act of public repentance.
