Papal mistake

[Verbum_Caro]

Just Lurking,

You might not even have to wait until JPII to contradict Celestine, you can just go straight to Trent, Session 24:

CANON V.-If any one saith, that on account of heresy, . . . .or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema.

Oops.

I actually found this Celestine dilemma put forth in an anti-Catholic tract from the 1869. Evidently, it has been repeated, and used as ammo, by various others since – up until the present.

The response that I found was that the decision of Celestine was one of juridical action directed towards a specific individual – and amounted to a private opinion. The mistake that the anti-Catholic tract made, it seems, was to inflate Celestine’s one time intervention from an arbitration to a promulgated general principle.

I suppose the place to start would be to nail down exactly what Celestine put forth, how, why, in what language, etc.

VC

 

[LilyM]

Here are the details. John Paul II taught that (see here)

1. Today’s meeting with you, members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, is an appropriate setting for also speaking to the whole Church about the limits of the Roman Pontiff’s power over ratified and consummated marriage, which “cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (CIC, can. 1141; CCEO, can. 853). By its very nature this formulation of canon law is not only disciplinary or prudential, but corresponds to a doctrinal truth that the Church has always held.

The medieval pope was Celestine III and his decretal Laudabilem. Celestine allowed the dissolution of the marriage of a Catholic woman whose Catholic husband had abandoned both her and the Catholic faith.

My take on this is that Celestine made a doctrinal error in dissolving, or should I say attempting to dissolve, a sacramental marriage, but that his actions were clearly not infallible. I’m wondering if there are any other ways to view his actions.

Dissolving a marriage is usually a matter of canon law, not doctrine, and a dissolution is usually a simple statement of church law rather than a statement of infallible doctrinal teaching. Rules on marriage, for example on whether third/fourth/fifth cousins needed a dispensation to marry, have changed significantly over the centuries, and the Church has every right to change the rules as they have done.

The fact that there was LATER dogma contradictory to Celestine’s action has no impact - it wasn’t dogma in his day, therefore not required belief nor error on Celestine’s part to believe differently.

An illustration - a few noted theologians and doctors of the Church, for example Augustine and Aquinas, said things in their day that conflict with the Dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception as proclaimed in the 1800s. To do so doesn’t make them in error - they were free, since they lived many centuries before this proclamation, to teach as they wished on the topic.

 

[mardukm]

In other words, Pope Celestine was not teaching that it would be the norm for the Church to dissolve valid marriages under those circumstances, but made a one-time ruling?

I’d be interested to know more about the circumstances of that one-time event.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Just_Lurking]

So, first, as a matter of form, I’m not certain that JPII’s statement qualifies as infallible (although it is certainly reflective of Catholic teaching).

After John Paul reviews the historical teaching on this, he concludes:

It seems quite clear then that the non-extension of the Roman Pontiff’s power to ratified and consummated sacramental marriages is taught by the Church’s Magisterium as a doctrine to be held definitively, even if it has not been solemnly declared by a defining act. This doctrine, in fact, has been explicitly proposed by the Roman Pontiffs in categorical terms, in a constant way and over a sufficiently long period of time. It was made their own and taught by all the Bishops in communion with the See of Peter, with the knowledge that it must always be held and accepted by the faithful.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is some information about Celestine, from Divorce and Remarriage, by Theodore Mackin, S.J. Starting on page 314:

Pope Celestine III, and perhaps Urban III before him, sought to introduce into Roman Catholic law the dissolution of a marriage because of the lapse into heresy of one of the spouses. Celestine’s intent was that even a consummated marriage be dissolved for this cause.

The medieval estimation of the effect on a marriage of a lapse into heresy was borrowed from a judgment we have already seen come from Augustine. He assimilated apostasy or heresy to adultery, calling it “spiritual adultery.” In this he followed the metaphor used so commonly by the Hebrew prophets Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel in portraying Israel’s religious defection as adultery committed with the enemies of the Lord God, Israel’s (metaphoric) husband.

A case which Celestine decided in this way involved a husband who had abandoned his wife, had abandoned the Catholic faith, and had sought to take an unbaptized woman as his second wife. An archdeacon of the diocese of Florence declared the first marriage dissolved and permitted the abandoned wife to remarry. Celestine approved of this, and himself declared that even if the apostate husband were to return to the Catholic faith, the wife’s second marriage would remain. She would not be obliged to return to him; he was no longer her husband.

Celestine’s justification for this ruling was the case’s analogous relationship to the situation among the Corinthian Christians about which St. Paul had instructed, “If the non-believing spouse separates, let him separate” (1 Corinthians 7:15). From this Celestine reasoned that if Paul allowed his converts in Corinth to dismiss their non-believing spouses who would not live in peace, a fortiori should a Catholic spouse be allowed to dismiss a husband or wife who has apostatized, since apostacy is a worse evil than mere recalcitrant non-belief? (Like so many users of 1 Corinthians 7:15 Celestine failed to notice that Paul did not counsel the Christian spouses to dismiss the non-Christian, but to not hinder the latter if they wished to depart. Moreover it is significant that Celestine deemed the effect of what he thought to be the dismissal counseled by Paul to be the dissolution of the marriage.)

In 1199 Bishop Huguccio consulted Innocent III about a case that had come to light in the former’s diocese of Ferrara. One spouse had lapsed into heresy and had abandoned the other. Was the marriage thereby dissolved? Could it be dissolved because of the heresy and abandonment? Could the abandoned and still religiously faithful spouse remarry?

Innocent’s reply was a firm no. He insisted on the absolute indissolubility of a marriage that is both a sacrament and consummated. And he rejected the contrary decision that had been made by “one of my predecessors.” He added that the use of the Pauline privilege could dissolve only the marriages of non-believers, for even though theirs are true marriages, they are not sacraments.

 

[clmowry]

I think I know where this is going and I hope your documentation and source or sources is correct and reliable.

It wont be.

In any case past or future personal behavior of a Pope has no bearing on the validity of doctrine.

We had a Pope who kept a mistress that doesn’t make fornication OK now.

It would be the same logical arguement.

I’m guessing we can find that all 10 commandments have been broken by one Pope or another. I guess that means we can all pretty much do whatever we want now.

Yeah!

Oh wait this logic only applies to womens ordination.

Darn.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Sounds like an annulment to me.

What’s new here?

Chuck

Here are the details. John Paul II taught that (see here)

1. Today’s meeting with you, members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, is an appropriate setting for also speaking to the whole Church about the limits of the Roman Pontiff’s power over ratified and consummated marriage, which “cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (CIC, can. 1141; CCEO, can. 853). By its very nature this formulation of canon law is not only disciplinary or prudential, but corresponds to a doctrinal truth that the Church has always held.

The medieval pope was Celestine III and his decretal Laudabilem. Celestine allowed the dissolution of the marriage of a Catholic woman whose Catholic husband had abandoned both her and the Catholic faith.

My take on this is that Celestine made a doctrinal error in dissolving, or should I say attempting to dissolve, a sacramental marriage, but that his actions were clearly not infallible. I’m wondering if there are any other ways to view his actions.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Let me begin by the observation that during his pontificate, John Paul II authoritatively taught that the Church had no authority to perform a certain action. Furthermore, he certified that this teaching was infallible via the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Now, let us suppose that it is discovered that during the Middle Ages, a bishop encountered a situation where in his opinion, a woman had an especially meritorious case for having this action applied to her. The bishop wrote to the Pope at the time, and the Pope approved of having this action applied to this particular woman.

The question: How are we to understand this? Did the medieval pope make an error in doctrine, or merely a misjudgement in the application of a practical discipline? If this was only a matter of discipline, would it be possible for a future pope to make the same disciplinary misjudgement?

Finally, did the action have its intended effect, or does the infallible teaching that the Church does not have the authority to perform this action mean that the action was invalid?

Note: I’m keeping this discussion at an abstract level for now, because I don’t want to get side-tracked with tons of details before I understand the general principles involved. Thanks!

It’s Doctrine that it isn’t possible to do what the Bishop wanted, It’s also discipline to not even attempt to do what isn’t possible. The medieval pope would have made an error in answering the bishop. Keep in mind he was not teaching, proclaiming doctrine by this action. He was allowing a single Bishop to something that was not possible at it’s root. This would be like if you worked for me and you asked me if you could rob a bank during working hours. If I approved it would still be wrong and a crime to rob the bank, even if I allowed you to do it while on my time clock.

 

[thistle]

Here are the details. John Paul II taught that (see here)

1. Today’s meeting with you, members of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, is an appropriate setting for also speaking to the whole Church about the limits of the Roman Pontiff’s power over ratified and consummated marriage, which “cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” (CIC, can. 1141; CCEO, can. 853). By its very nature this formulation of canon law is not only disciplinary or prudential, but corresponds to a doctrinal truth that the Church has always held.

The medieval pope was Celestine III and his decretal Laudabilem. Celestine allowed the dissolution of the marriage of a Catholic woman whose Catholic husband had abandoned both her and the Catholic faith.

My take on this is that Celestine made a doctrinal error in dissolving, or should I say attempting to dissolve, a sacramental marriage, but that his actions were clearly not infallible. I’m wondering if there are any other ways to view his actions.

As another poster said we cannot comment on a specific case without knowing all the details which are certainly not contained in your post.

 

[clmowry]

“Consumated sacramental marriages” being the operative term.

No one, including the Pope can nullify such.

The question is did the marriage meet the requirements for such.

IF for example one of the spouses was planning on leaving the faith “at the time of the marriage” this could be grounds for annulment.

Chuck

After John Paul reviews the historical teaching on this, he concludes:

It seems quite clear then that the non-extension of the Roman Pontiff’s power to ratified and consummated sacramental marriages is taught by the Church’s Magisterium as a doctrine to be held definitively, even if it has not been solemnly declared by a defining act. This doctrine, in fact, has been explicitly proposed by the Roman Pontiffs in categorical terms, in a constant way and over a sufficiently long period of time. It was made their own and taught by all the Bishops in communion with the See of Peter, with the knowledge that it must always be held and accepted by the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

As far as I understand it, girls as altar servers is a clearly defined matter of Church discipline. Yes, the Church has the authority to change this. Although I don’t see how this widespread practice is analogous to the situation mentioned in your first post.

He is mixing doctrine and disciplines in the same bowl, thinking perhaps that they are identical?

 

[clmowry]

“Consumated sacramental marriages” being the operative term.

No one, including the Pope can nullify such.

The question is did the marriage meet the requirements for such.

IF for example one of the spouses was planning on leaving the faith “at the time of the marriage” this could be grounds for annulment.

Chuck

After John Paul reviews the historical teaching on this, he concludes:

It seems quite clear then that the non-extension of the Roman Pontiff’s power to ratified and consummated sacramental marriages is taught by the Church’s Magisterium as a doctrine to be held definitively, even if it has not been solemnly declared by a defining act. This doctrine, in fact, has been explicitly proposed by the Roman Pontiffs in categorical terms, in a constant way and over a sufficiently long period of time. It was made their own and taught by all the Bishops in communion with the See of Peter, with the knowledge that it must always be held and accepted by the faithful.

 

[Just_Lurking]

“Consumated sacramental marriages” being the operative term.

No one, including the Pope can nullify such.

The question is did the marriage meet the requirements for such.

IF for example one of the spouses was planning on leaving the faith “at the time of the marriage” this could be grounds for annulment.

Chuck

Unlike today’s practice, annulments were quite a bit harder to get back in the middle ages. And even today, speculating that something “could be grounds for annulment” isn’t enough to justify a second marriage. An annulment must actually be granted before a second marriage can licitly take place.

This was not an annulment, it was the dissolution, or supposed dissolution, of a valid, sacramental, consummated marriage. There is no historical ambiguity on this point. Pope Innocent III’s condemnation of Celestine III actions should serve to demonstrate that.

My question relates to the doctrinal issues raised by Celestine’s actions. Everyone seems clear that Celestine could not, and therefore did not, dissolve the woman’s marriage. Thus, it seems to me that by his doctrinal error in believing that he could dissolve the marriage when he could not, he led her into unknowing adultery in her second marriage.

I have a related question, but I will ask it in the relevant thread (see here).

 

[thistle]

Unlike today’s practice, annulments were quite a bit harder to get back in the middle ages. And even today, speculating that something “could be grounds for annulment” isn’t enough to justify a second marriage. An annulment must actually be granted before a second marriage can licitly take place.

This was not an annulment, it was the dissolution, or supposed dissolution, of a valid, sacramental, consummated marriage. There is no historical ambiguity on this point. Pope Innocent III’s condemnation of Celestine III actions should serve to demonstrate that.

My question relates to the doctrinal issues raised by Celestine’s actions. Everyone seems clear that Celestine could not, and therefore did not, dissolve the woman’s marriage. Thus, it seems to me that by his doctrinal error in believing that he could dissolve the marriage when he could not, he led her into unknowing adultery in her second marriage.

I have a related question, but I will ask it in the relevant thread (see here).

So far you have just posted bits from a book you read. Please link us to the actual text of Celestine III’s decretal otherwise this thread will just go round and round.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So far you have just posted bits from a book you read. Please link us to the actual text of Celestine III’s decretal otherwise this thread will just go round and round.

The reference for the decretal is Decretales Gregorii IX, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879) 3, 33, 1. I have no idea if this is online or not.

 

[LilyM]

Unlike today’s practice, annulments were quite a bit harder to get back in the middle ages. And even today, speculating that something “could be grounds for annulment” isn’t enough to justify a second marriage. An annulment must actually be granted before a second marriage can licitly take place.

This was not an annulment, it was the dissolution, or supposed dissolution, of a valid, sacramental, consummated marriage. There is no historical ambiguity on this point. Pope Innocent III’s condemnation of Celestine III actions should serve to demonstrate that.

My question relates to the doctrinal issues raised by Celestine’s actions. Everyone seems clear that Celestine could not, and therefore did not, dissolve the woman’s marriage. Thus, it seems to me that by his doctrinal error in believing that he could dissolve the marriage when he could not, he led her into unknowing adultery in her second marriage.

I have a related question, but I will ask it in the relevant thread (see here).

There’s no such thing as unknowing adultery, nor is there such a thing as unknowingly leading someone into adultery. Any sin, and any leading of another into sin, has to occur either with full knowledge or at least some sort of negligence, recklessness or carelessness on the part of the sinner.

The woman and those around her did all that could be reasonably expected in this case, they sought the ruling of the Pope who is the ultimate arbiter of the validity of marriages. Presumably Celestine also gave his ruling in good faith and after due consideration, albeit that it was wrong in fact.

Marriage IS largely a matter of Canon Law and Canon Law on marriages, for example in the matter of dispensations, has changed considerably over the centuries, and not usually a matter of dogma or doctrine. Even though Trent made some of it such, and even though Celestine was considering making it such.

It’s not the end of the world, judges often give decisions in good faith that are in fact wrong (hence the appeals process which overturns them) and it’s no reflection either on the character or intelligence of the judge or the rightness of the law which that judge attempts to apply.

Those involved in the case had every right to trust the Pope’s decision on this matter and act upon it, even if factually it was incorrect. She therefore most certainly did not commit adultery, neither did Celestine lead her into such.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So far you have just posted bits from a book you read. Please link us to the actual text of Celestine III’s decretal otherwise this thread will just go round and round.

I may have found it online. See here.

 

[thistle]

I may have found it online. See here.

That doesn’t help me. I don’t understand Latin.

You are the one who opened this thread using this document as your supporting evidence for a so-called Papal mistake.
Are you now telling us that you have not even read the source document?

 

[neophyte]

Here is some information about Celestine, from Divorce and Remarriage, by Theodore Mackin, S.J. Starting on page 314:…

Again, it would really help if we knew the exact wording of the document and the Holy Father’s intent in writing it. I don’t read Latin so I can’t translate what you linked.

Taking what you’ve posted at face value, there appears to not have been any intent to exercise the extraordinary Magesterium. So your initial take would be correct: the Holy Father erred in granting what might be called a “declaration of dissolution” of what he understood to be a sacramental mariage.

This poses no issues w.r.t. the doctrine infallibility.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Thanks for the help, everyone!