Dear Fr.

I appreciated hearing about Pope Leo XIII and his encyclical during your homily at the  mass on October 16.  We are to give to God what belongs to God and to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.  In principle, we know something belongs to God if it involves the salvation of souls or if it involves how people treat each other.

Everything you described that Pope Leo said about justice in the work place made sense and I’m glad our current government polices reflect his wisdom.  Even if the government had ignored Pope Leo’s exhortations, I’d hope that at least Catholics would have been educated about their obligations to follow this encylical’s instructions.

There is another Encyclical from Pope Leo XIII which has become very important for me: Arcanum, “On Christian Marriage.”  The encyclical teaches that marriage, “is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church. ...  Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State.”

Forty years ago, the governmental policies regarding marriage and divorce reflected the church’s teaching in that one could be legally separated only if one’s spouse was guilt of grave fault such as physical abuse, chemical addiction, or adultery.  Now, with no-fault divorce, an abandoning spouse can use the civil court to remove innocent children from the home of the dedicated, innocent spouse.   Canon law specifies the need to obtain authorization from one’s bishop before trying to obtain a civil divorce or legal separation, and this canon law likely comes from Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Arcanum. Perhaps you’d consider teaching  Catholics about this encyclical too.  The Catechism makes the distinction between the faithful spouse and the one who destroys a marriage (CCC 2386).

You may be interested in knowing that the constitutional Law Professor who founded Ave Maria Law School is now my lead attorney and we are appealing the local civil court’s divorce decree; we are arguing that the church has jurisdiction over our marriage and family.  I am also awaiting a decree from the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota;  I had asked the church to adjudicate its own canons regarding separation.  The Law Professor is essentially going to argue the civil government doesn’t have authority to contradict the Church decree regarding my family.  Because we married in accordance with the rules of the Catholic Church,  Ohio ‘s civil jurists can’t force my children and I, (and maybe even the Catholic School) to contradict the code of our church.  The government doesn’t have the constitutional power to force us to follow a divorce decree from a civil court which is likely immoral, and the decree from the church tribunal should have the civil power.  Parties in a contract can name the third party arbitrator to determine the outcome in the case of disputes, and couples with Catholic Marriages have named the  Church as their arbitrator.

I recognize that no one can force abandoning spouses to work on reconciling their relationship.   But they should not be allowed to use the civil courts to forcibly remove children from the household of the parent who is loyal to their vows and loyal to Christ’s teaching regarding marriage and many other things.    The church does have an interest in protecting children from scandal and my law Professor believes the innocent spouse and the Catholic Church have a constitutional right to protect these children too.  He’s publicizing his work on www.truemarriage.net.

Sincerely,
Bai Macfarlane
 

enclosures:
 Excerpts from Pope Leo XIII Encyclical, Arcanum, On Christian Marriage
 Excerpts from Commentary on Canon Law
 Zenit Article: Children of Divorce, New Study Explores the Nasty Effects
 
 

19. Marriage has God for its Author . . . . is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church. . .
          20. Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, . . . it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.
          23. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State. . . A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.
          24. Neither, therefore, by reasoning can it be shown, nor by any testimony of history be proved, that power over the marriages of Christians has ever lawfully been handed over to the rulers of the State.
          29. Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce.
          39. . . . marriage was not instituted by the will of man, but, from the very beginning, by the authority and command of God; . . . Christ, the Author of the New Covenant, raised it from a rite of nature to be a sacrament, and gave to His Church legislative and judicial power with regard to the bond of union. On this point the very greatest care must be taken to instruct them, lest their minds should be led into error by the unsound conclusions of adversaries who desire that the Church should be deprived of that power.
          41. . . no power can dissolve the bond of Christian marriage whenever this has been ratified and consummated . . . more
 
 

 His Eminence Julian Cardinal Herranz
 Dr. Escrivá Ivars
 Exegetical Commentary canon 1151
"The procedure related to causes of separation is regulated in cc. 1692-1696. Barring anything lawfully provided by particular law, personal separation of baptized spouses can be decided by decree of the diocesan bishop (administrative channel) or by judgment by a judge (judicial channel). The administrative channel is pursued before the diocesan bishop, who will pronounce his decision by decree, in which he must decide whether the separation requested is according to law, and he must find regarding the education and support of the children (cf. c. 1154)" (c. 1151. page 1574)
          "Exegetical Commentary of the Code of Canon Law"  Midwest Theological Forum (February 1, 2004) ISBN: 1890177334

Joan Carrers,
Exegetical Commentary canon1692
     "However, in other causes, the crises of married life are not due to a defect of marriage consent.  In these cases, the solution cannot be a declaration of nullity, but if sufficient causes exist, in the issuance of an act of a constitutive nature through which the ecclesiastical authority brings about a transformation of the obligatory content of the union.  Therefore, one is not dealing with a divorce but with the modification of the obligations to which the spouses are bound.  .... [In] the case of separation, we are facing decisions, juridical or administrative, of a constitutive character.
     "Since the transformation of the obligatory content of the bond is not limited to the civil effects of marriage, c. 1692 § 1 implicitly establishes that the causes of personal separation of the baptized must be taken to the canonical forum, "unless lawfully provided otherwise in particular places."  ...
 "a) In countries that permit the anticipation that the sentence issued in this matter will not be contrary to the divine law, the spouses can solicit the permission of the bishop of the diocese of residence to go to the civil forum."
 (Exegetical Commentary, Midwest Theological Forum copyright 2004, page 1898)
 

Javier Hervada
Annotations canon 1154
This canon merely establishes a generic principle without going into the details found in c. 1132 of the CIC/17, since it considers that there are civil effects pertaining to the civil judge, though providing what is necessary for the Catholic education of the children is a Church matter which is within the province of the ecclesiastical judge." (Code of Canon Law Annotated, Second edition revised and updated of the 6th Spanish language edition. Woodridge, IL. 2004. Midwest Theological Forum,  ISBN 1-890177-44-X, page 897)

Dr. Luis Lopez Madero
Annotations canon 1692
     "... Leaving aside the prescriptions of particular law on this matter, § 1 establishes two ways of hearing this type of case;
     "1) Administrative: the case is brought before the diocesan bishop who, by decree, gives his decision as to whether the requested separation is to be granted, and establishes guidelines regarding the upbringing and adequate support of the children. ...
     "Paragraphs 2 and 3 [canon 1692] consider some cases where the spouses, after obtaining authorization from the diocesan bishop of their place of domicile, bring their case before the civil forum.  Since divorce laws have proliferated in many countries, the need to request the diocesan bishop's authorization is a necessary precaution, which prevents the fostering of [civil (my note)] trials whose judgments violate precepts of divine law, to the detriment of the spouses and with the risk of scandal to others."  (Code of Canon Law Annotated, Midwest Theological Forum, page 1324)

Children of Divorce
New Study Explores the Nasty Effects

CHICAGO, OCT. 15, 2005 (Zenit.org).- A quarter of U.S. adults ages 18 to 35 have grown up in divorced families. The impact of divorce on them is the subject of a new book, "Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce" (Crown Publishers).

Author Elizabeth Marquardt surveyed 1,500 young adults from both divorced and intact families, and conducted in-depth interviews with more than 70 of them. Her conclusion: "While divorce is sometimes necessary, there is no such thing as a good divorce."

Marquardt acknowledges that children in high-conflict marriages, or in situations where there is violence, benefit from divorce. Such cases, however, involve only around one-third of divorces, and the children of the other low-conflict marriages fare worse after divorce. And, while noting that most parents take seriously the decision to divorce, Marquardt urges them to try even harder to preserve their marriages, given the costs involved for their children.

Even if a divorce is amicable, and the couple maintains a good relationship after separating, and even if they continue to love and care for the children, this does not eliminate "the radical restructuring of the child's universe," the author contends.

The moment when parents split is only the start of this restructuring. Around two-thirds of the children of divorce surveyed by Marquardt say they felt they grew up in two families, not one. Growing up in two worlds creates a whole series of problems, starting with the fact that both parents are no longer "insiders," or a part of the family.

Parallel worlds

In marriage, Marquardt explains, parents often have differences, but they work together to bridge them and they manage to give family life a unity. But a divorce often encourages the former spouses to define themselves in opposition to each other. Hence the beliefs and values of the two parents, instead of achieving an equilibrium, exist in parallel, creating contrasts and conflicts, rather than unity, for the children.

After the split, the conflict between former spouses may no longer be open, but the conflict between their two worlds is still very much alive, Marquardt observes. A child in a united family, by contrast, does not have to spend so much time and effort in reconciling the differences between parents, and can concentrate on enjoying daily life.

Thus, children of divorced couples are forced to enter into an adult world of responsibilities and worries at a young age. Marquardt's survey revealed that even among those children whose parents had managed their divorce well (in terms of reducing the impact on the kids) around half agreed that they always felt like an adult, even when they were young. This proportion reached two-thirds among children whose parents' divorces were more problematic.

Following a divorce, many of the children felt they had a responsibility to protect their mothers, and a substantial number had to take on greater duties in caring for their siblings. This also happens in families where a parent dies or is seriously ill; the difference with divorce is that the children know it comes about as a result of a voluntary choice on the part of at least one parent.

The way in which a divorce comes about also often wounds children, recounts Marquardt. In an ideal situation, the parents would gather the children together and carefully explain everything, and reassure them about the future. Yet, the breakup of a marriage is often messy and chaotic, making it difficult for the parents to organize well the initial announcement to their children, the author reports.

Moreover, the adults are often vulnerable and in grief or shock. It can be hard for children to see their parents in this situation. And it also means that just when the children are in need of comfort they are less able to turn to their parents for support.

Further problems arise in the post-divorce period, when children have to deal with the conflicts and criticisms between the former spouses. The young adults who grew up in divorced families told Marquardt how they felt obliged to be careful what they said to each parent about the other. Such information could lead to hurt feelings or trigger criticisms about the other parent.

Forging values

Notably, Marquardt's book focuses on the impact of divorce on the moral lives of children. The children feel conflict as they experience different values and ways of life in each parent's separate household. The result is that the children now have to forge their own values and beliefs, the author contends.

Normally, children absorb their parents' values in a natural and gradual process, without having to make a conscious effort. Clearly, there are often differences between parents, but on the whole the children see their parents' values as complementary. And the parents normally work together, backing up each other's authority.

But the young adults studied by Marquardt rarely thought of their parents' values as unified. Differences on small matters such as household routines or disciplinary norms, or more important subjects such as moral values and ambitions for their children, grow wider after divorce. This leaves the children confused, and faced with the task of having to construct their own values in the midst of this conflict.

The differences between the two households means more that just an uncomfortable social situation, where we don't want to offend someone, Marquardt comments. The conflicts are between the two most important people in a child's life -- and these crossed signals go to the heart of a child's identity.

One consequence is that of the children interviewed, 24% of those from divorced families say they do not share the similar moral values with their fathers. And 17% felt the same about their mothers. This compares with children from intact families, where only 6% say they do not share similar values with their parents.

Asked about where they got their sense of right and wrong, children of divorce will name mothers, but rarely fathers. Requiring such children to forge their own values, Marquardt concludes, might help to explain why they have higher rates of problems such as substance abuse, teen pregnancy and delinquency.

Another finding of the study is that today's young adult children of divorce are less religious overall than their peers from intact families. Sometimes the suffering caused by their parents' divorce leads them to question their belief in God. Others are motivated to seek answers to their doubts in religious faith, but the process can be a struggle.

Overall, the young adults from divorced families are less likely to feel religious or to practice their faith as those from intact families. They are also more likely to doubt the sincerity of their parents' faith.

Marquardt concludes by observing that children require strong, lasting marriages in order to have the secure home they need while growing up. They are not like property that can be divided, but need love, stability and moral guidance. This means making changes to our thinking about marriages. Parents, she pleads, must not just love their children but must also love and forgive each other, to sustain families that last a lifetime. news site