*“I believe the very fact that, in the exceptions to the marriage law which you state, there is implicit the concept of defecting from the Catholic Church by means of a formal act, this is sufficient to suppose that one may leave the Church and no longer be subject to the 1983 Code.” *
I think this means to assert, that the very existence of three exceptions for marriage imply that such departure carries with it total exemption from all Church law. I will take it that canon 1 is now clarified but return to the OC and PNC below.
Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions, and should not be extrapolated or extended beyond their proper scope. My thoughts continue to be that in the interpretation of canon law, “in tres” does not equate to “in omnibus.” Let us explore that.
- The concept of defection by a formal act is quite explicitly and directly treated in the code and the declaration to which I have linked. The declaration limits the exceptions to only three marriage laws provided in canons 1086, 1117 and 1124. Neither the code nor the declaration says anything about removing any objective obligation to the rest of the law of the Church. Even in these cases, it still applies the law in order to make the exemptions.
a. Those canons only address the situation of marriage for an individual who defects by a formal act and not of that of a group electing schism. The first canon pertains to the matter of only one ecclesiastical diriment impediment, the second canon to canonical form, and the third canon to mixed marriage. Canon 17 requires that they must be placed in that context to be properly interpreted.
b. No other exemption from ecclesiastical law is mentioned for a person who has defected by a formal act. For example, the impediment of holy orders remains (c. 1087), as does the impediment public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute (c. 1088).
“Certainly, there are exceptions to Canon 11; e.g., one who was baptized in the Roman rite may change rites and hence, Canon 11 would no longer apply to that person.”
- This overlooks the broader point that such a person continues to be subject to the Catholic Church even though belonging to a different autonomous Church. Moreover, the example of a change of enrollment from the Latin Church to an Eastern Church does not provide such an exception that supports the position. In such a case, canon 1490 of the Eastern Canons, which is identical to the parallel canon 11 of the Latin code, would then apply.
“Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, who have sufficient use of reason and, unless the law itself expressly provides otherwise, who have completed their seventh year of age.”
- The common opinion of experts regarding canon 11 is illustrated in two well known commentaries on the canon.
“In principle, Catholics who later abandoned the faith are not excluded from subjection to it” (Caparros et al., eds., Code of Canon Law Annotated, 1995)
“Once a Catholic by baptism or reception one always remains a Catholic. Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights . . . but they are still bound to the obligations of the law.” (Beal et al., eds., CLSA Commentary, 2000)
“You may at least take the marriage canons as supplemental law.”
- I am unclear what this signifies unless meant to reference the sense of canon 19. That canon which gives norms for interpreting when there is a lacuna legis but I do not see where there is one in this situation. Perhaps someone else does.
- The marriage canons provide exceptions to the law, and exceptions are subject to strict interpretation (c. 18). They should not be stretched beyond what they treat.
- Then, too, if “one may leave the Church and no longer be subject to the 1983 Code”, the 1983 code would have said nothing about a number of situations. Yet it did speak to them and we cannot presume the legislator intended laws without meaning on moot issues.
a. For example, in the case of a cleric who defects, the law provides that he is automatically removed from an ecclesiastical office (c. 194). Further, a person who abandons ecclesiastical communion with the Church is prohibited from joining a public association of the faithful and be dismissed from one (c. 316).
b. We also have the
latae sententiae censure referenced earlier in the thread. Why did the legislator bother to create a censure for the delict of schism if schism makes a person no longer subject to the law of the Church (schism being among the conditions which the declaration supposes for defection by a formal act)?
“I see no reason to suppose that 1983 ended the possibility of a new schismatic Church arising which may be in the same condition as the Orthodox Church or the Polish National Church. I suppose Rome would ultimately need to rule in this case, but, unfortunately, in light of recent events, it seems that all the conditions exist for the makings of a new schismatic church with the SSPX”
- While the conditions for organized schism may exist, we should recall that these two historical divisions of the Catholic Church predated even the 1917 code. The doctrine of Vatican II (LG 8, UR 3) would have related to them as existing Churches and ecclesial communities not in communion with the Catholic Church at the time, and that is reflected in the current practice of the Holy See about sacraments in which faculties are needed. However, the council did not seem to be entertaining provision for the creation of separated Churches in the future.
- Should a deplorable break occur, the Holy See may treat the SSPX as it now treats the OC and PNC, but I can only present the reasons why it would likely not do so on the basis of those canons of exception or on the basis of a declared censure arising from the delict of schism. In either case it is wise to recall those pertain to individuals.
