Note how promptly Bergoglian consigliere Fr. Spadaro got himself into the picture, literally and figuratively, for this latest Bergoglian publicity coup...
Does this join the litany of recent papal errors?
The Pope marries a couple
on the papal airplane. Hmmm.
January 18, 2018
I fairly dread papal trips these days. You never know what is going to happen on the papal airplane. Will there be another presser in which the Holy Father will say something like, “Who am I to judge?” That was a gift – now perpetually taken out of context and abused – that keeps on giving.
I read at Crux that the Holy Father married (witnessed the marriage) of a steward and stewardess on the papal airplane – during the flight.
Paula Podest, 39, and Carlos Ciufardi, 41, have been together for over ten years. They met in the air, where she was his boss as a flight attendant for LATAM, Chile’s flagship airline. They have been civilly married since 2010. Days before they were scheduled to have their church wedding, an earthquake destroyed the church where they were supposed to marry. [Fr Z's comment: According to the Daily Mail, that was 8 years ago. 8 years… and they haven’t married in church? I suppose they had marriage prep. Also, in the case of an earthquake, the church building isn’t a sine qua non for getting married. It is sad that they couldn’t get marriage in that church, but… [sacramental] marriage is the really important part of the equation, not the building or photos.] [Did the pope's improvised and necessarily abbreviated ritual constitute a proper and valid sacrament of matrimony?]
Today, as they were posing with Francis and the rest of the crew for the official picture, Francis asked them if they were married in the Church. They told him no, and the pontiff immediately took charge, asking them if they wanted him to marry them, and they agreed.
The newlyweds shared the conversation they had with the pontiff with the journalists, with Podest acknowledging that she was “still in shock,” so he did most of the talking, even though, from what they told journalists, “she’s still the boss in the house,” as she was at the airline when they met.
“He asked us if we were married, I said no because of the earthquake, and he said, ‘well, I’ll marry you’,” according to Ciufardi. [One must credit media-meister Bergoglio for quickly seeing an opportunity to post yet another historic papal first, never mind what canon law says about the necessary preparations (including confession and communion) and prescribed ritual for any priest who performs a marriage ceremony - which is, after all, a sacrament, that must be performed properly and solemnly, not improvised on-the-spot as if it were simply a publicity stunt - which this one was, without a doubt!]
“It is historic,” the pope told them. “Never has a pope married a couple on a plane.” [How's that for full awareness that he was doing something 'irregular', but what does it matter? he is the pope and he can do as he pleases, right?]
The spouses asked the pontiff if he was certain about marrying them on the plane, asking him “are you sure?”
When the pope asked for a witness, they tapped the CEO of the airline, and to make sure there was no doubt over the validity of the sacrament, the pope “asked the cardinals who were with him” to draft the license, which they did. The document is handmade, signed by one of the cardinals, also a witness.
“He held our hands, blessed the rings, and he married us in the name of God,” Ciufardi said.
“What he said to us is very important: ‘This is the sacrament the world needs, the sacrament of marriage. Hopefully, this will motivate couples around the world to get married’,” Ciufardi said.
Speaking about the rings, Francis said that they shouldn’t be either too tight, because “they would be a torture,” or too loose, or else they might risk misplacing them.
These days there are controversies over the meaning of marriage. These days, fewer and fewer couples are marrying.
For example, if a couple who are in an adulterous relationship because at least one party divorced his true spouse and then civilly marries another woman – without the Church giving a declaration of nullity concerning his first, true marriage,
can that remarried, adulterous couple be admitted to Holy Communion, even though they haven’t made any commitment to live chaste lives? Some say, “Yes!”, and, by doing so, they call into question the very meaning of matrimony and also the Eucharist. At the very least, they make a mockery of matrimony, trivialize it.
I trust that this well-intentioned gesture by Pope Francis isn’t taken merely to be some sort of stunt, which the badly-motivated will utilize to trivialize the sacrament of matrimony even more than is is being trivialized today.
Another thing: may this couple stay together! It would be… not so great were they to split up after this rather dramatic aerial display. Headline: Papal midair marriage crashes!
I can’t say that I like the whole airplane thing. The Pope makes his calls. Who am I to judge?
Can we put sentimentality aside for a moment? Gestures like this have consequences. This wasn’t some odd priest on an airplane, it was the Vicar of Christ.
Again, this is all very huggy and warm and fuzzy. But let’s think about this.
I wasn’t there, of course, but I think it could have been a good idea to make sure they knew what matrimony is really all about. That’s what marriage preparation is for. They’ve been civilly but not sacramentally married for 8 years. All this time they didn’t seek the sacrament? What’s that about? Maybe the Pope got their story.
When a priest marries a couple, he should be reasonably sure that they know what they are getting into. He can be fairly sure if they had some kind of marriage prep, done by himself or by another priest, etc. You have to know before you witness the marriage of couple – if they are going to enter into this sacramental bond – whether or not they have the right intentions. Does the couple – I’m speaking generically now – any couple – intend to remain together for life? Do they intend for their bond to be exclusive? Do they intend to accept the gift of children?
Also, the sacrament of matrimony is one of the “sacraments of the living”. It should be received in the state of grace, after a good examination of conscience and confession. Not by “surprise”, as it were.
Moreover, you have to ascertain if they are both free to marry, having no previous bond that the Church had to examine. I imagine that, before tying their knot the Holy Father asked them about these things. Right? He was a diocesan bishop. He knows about these things.
The Pope can dispense immediately anything that can be dispensed. But if there is a previous bond… nope. And an airplane isn’t the place to deal with Pauline or Petrine Privilege. Get that wrong when you are Pope and problems result.
Sure, this on-the-spot – well…it was “on-the-spot” only relatively speaking – marriage took care of one instance of a couple living together. There are a lot more out there.
I wonder if the on-the-spot thing won’t spur odd situations:
“The Pope married that couple on an airplane! Why won’t you, Father, marry us right now here at the zoo?”
What do you want to bet that sort of thing will pop up for priests after this?
I hope that this no doubt well-intentioned gesture by the Holy Father won’t also wind up being one of those gifts that keep on giving, but not in a good way.
Anyway, I wish that couple a holy and happy life.
Thoughts on a mid-air marriage
January 18, 2018
Show of hands! Who wants to rain all over the sentimental parade lining up behind (what is being presented as) the pope’s facilitation of married love? Anyone? Anyone?
I thought not. Oh well.
Readers of this blog know that I am no fan of canonical form for marriage (cc. 1108, 1117) — a cure that has far outlived the malady (clandestine marriage) it was designed to treat — but
canonical form is still law for Catholics and that law goes to the validity of Catholic marriage.
Based on the reports offered in the media so far,
I cannot tell whether the ‘wedding’ that the pope put together for an unsuspecting couple satisfies Church requirements on marriage. Moreover, several other laws impacting the liceity of marriage seem simply to have been disregarded in the event.
As happened several times under earlier administrations, a representative from the Vatican Press Office assures us that “everything was valid”.
Such assertions by canonically unqualified and unauthorized PR staff carry, of course, no weight. Real questions worthy of real answers are still raised by this event.
Before getting into details, however, let me say that I am sorry for Paula Podest and Carlos Ciuffardi, two perfectly pleasant flight attendants who paid a courtesy call on their celebrity guest and, next thing they know, their names, faces, and rather odd marriage history are being broadcast to the world. They did not ask for a wedding and were astonished when Pope Francis suggested it. This was not their idea.
Now, about the matter itself:
Popes have jurisdiction for the external forum anywhere on earth (cc. 134, 331, 1108),
so Francis can officiate at a wedding anywhere, anytime. [Just to get things straight here: In the canon law of the Catholic Church, a distinction is made between the internal forum, where an act of governance is made without publicity, and the external forum, where the act is public and verifiable. In canon law, internal forum, the realm of conscience, is contrasted with the external or outward forum; thus, a marriage might be null and void in the internal forum, but binding outwardly, i.e.,in the external forum, for want of judicial proof to the contrary.]
But officiating at a wedding means something specific: it means asking for and receiving the consent of the contracting parties to marrying each each other (c. 1108) here and now. Per the Rite of Matrimony, consent is sought from each party individually and must be oriented to marrying the other party at this time;
the request is not posed as a joint question to the couple about being married, akin to, ‘do you two want to be married?’, but rather is framed ‘do you marry him/her?’ at this point in time.
If consent (the heart of marriage per c. 1057) is not adequately asked for and received, it is not exchanged, and such a couple would not be married (and, No, ‘Ecclesia supplet’ cannot make up for a failure in what is actually sacramental — as opposed to canonical — form).
The above reports mention, as far as I can see, only the pope’s broaching the topic of marriage by asking the couple whether they wanted to be married, placing their hands together, saying a few inspirational words about marriage, and pronouncing them husband and wife. But such a sequence describes, not at all, a present exchange of consent by the parties. Let us hope, then, that in the actual event considerably more was said than has been reported.
Second,
canonical form demands two independent actual witnesses to the exchange of consent, meaning that five persons must be immediately present for the wedding — not folks who heard about it a few minutes later, or who saw something happening and wondered, hey, what’s going on back there? — but five persons acting together and at the same time: a bride, a groom, an officiant, and two other actual witnesses.
While reports are unclear as to how many people actually witnessed this event, and while this photo shows four people in the event (plus a camera man?) and four signatures on a document, another photo shows five names on the marriage document, so one may presume (c. 1541) accordingly.
Third,
several canons impacting the liceity of weddings (norms on ‘liceity’ often being regarded as wink-wink rules in Church life, especially when higher-ups model the wink-winking) were apparently ignored here, including:
- the requirement for serious pastoral preparation prior to a wedding (c. 1063),
- administration of Confirmation [if one or both spouses have not been confirmed] before Matrimony (c. 1065),
- urging of Penance and holy Communion before a wedding (c. 1065), -
verification that no obstacles to validity or liceity are in place (c. 1066), securing evidence of the contractants’ freedom to marry (c. 1068) upon pain of acting illicitly without it (c. 1114),
- an expectation that Catholic weddings be celebrated in a parish church (cc. 1115, 1118), and
- making use of the Church’s treasury of liturgical books for celebration of the sacramental rite (c. 1119).
As this story reverberates ‘round the world, now, deacons, priests, and bishops who try to uphold Church norms fostering values such as deliberate marriage preparation, an ecclesial context for a Catholic wedding, and the use of established and reliable texts for expressing consent will, undoubtedly, have
the Podest-Ciuffardi wedding tossed in their face as evidence that, if Pope Francis does not insist on such legalistic silliness and only cares about whether two people love one another, why shouldn’t they do likewise? The ministry of conscientious clergy in this regard just got harder.
As mentioned above, I would be happy to see the requirement of canonical form for marriage eliminated, this, for several reasons, one of which is that — long story omitted — we could actually make higher demands of Catholics who want to marry before our clergy than we can currently demand.
But the pope’s example of a spontaneous, zero-preparation, wedding is not at all what I and like-minded others have in mind. This couple undoubtedly gave more thought and attention to what they did by civilly marrying before a magistrate back in 2010 than they could have possibly given to what the pope suggested to them, on a few seconds’ notice, while at work, high above the Andes mountains.
If I have to say it, I will: I hope Podest and Ciuffardi are married and that they live happily ever after, but I worry whenever momentous life decisions are taken on a minute’s notice and under circumstances bound to contribute to one’s being carried away by events.
The pope has opined, apparently more than once, that “half of all sacramental marriages are null”. Here’s hoping that Podest and Ciuffardi beat those odds.
But, more surprises in connection with what some Bergoglio fanatics might well consider the 'wedding of the millennium' so far... Which confirms my first suspicion that the event was not quite all that 'spontaneous' (Why, for instance, would the pope ask airline crew members if they were married in Church during a fairly routine photo session with the crew?)
The mid-air marriage gets muddier
January 19, 2018
Popes on planes aren’t supposed to be a setting from which to draw fodder for canon law essay exams, but
as far back as Pope Benedict XVI, such flights have occasioned more than their fair share of papal words or actions carrying canonical implications but undertaken with little apparent advertence to canon law.
[As far as I can recall, the canon law question came up when Benedict XVI said in 2007 on his way to Brazil, that he agreed with the Mexican bishops who said Catholic politicians in Mexico had excommunicated themselves by legalizing abortion in that nation’s capital. “It’s nothing new, it’s normal, it wasn’t arbitrary. It is what is foreseen by the church’s doctrine,” Benedict told reporters. That does not sound like he spoke with 'little apparent advertence to canon law'. But the media spun it to say that the pope was himself excommunicating pro-abortion politicians.]
Let’s start with some fact questions in regard to the mid-air marriage recently officiated by Pope Francis.
It is emerging that maybe the wedding wasn’t as spontaneous as reported, that maybe the happy couple were not “astonished” at the pope’s allegedly sudden idea, and that maybe the ‘Here?!’ and ‘It was a great surprise’ portrayals were expected.
Last month, in an interview published in emol.com, Podest and Ciuffardi, picked to serve on the cabin crew for the papal visit, talked about their civil marriage from some eight years ago (which they had been too busy to convalidate), and stated that they
“both hope that in January this delayed [wedding] plan can finally take place on the plane and be officiated over by none other than Pope Francis himself. ‘We would like it. This is our place, our second home, it is where we feel secure.’” In the original Spanish: Ambos esperan que en enero próximo este postergado plan pueda finalmente concretarse sobre el avión y dirigido nada menos que por el mismísimo Papa Francisco. “Nos encantaría. Es nuestro lugar, es nuestra segunda casa, es donde nos sentimos seguros”.
C’mon, someone was obviously planning something. It would be interesting to know who and what.
[It's sad that the 'newlyweds' themselves have added an aspect of falsehood to this entire set-up, because it appears to have been an orchestrated set-up.]
In any event, a slurry of canon law exam questions can be drawn from this event in light of other facts, assuming they are facts (see my D&A no. 3 to the right), as discussed here, including:
— Defend the assertion that “convalidation” in a lack of form situation differs from a “wedding” only in regard to accidentals. Be sure to discuss Canon 1160.
— Discuss whether the official minister at a Catholic wedding can serve as one of the two other “witnesses” for purposes of canonical form (Canon 1108).
— Explain how the manifestation of consent to marriage is be “asked for and received” per Canon 1108 and the Rite of Marriage.
— Discuss how attention to various norms for the liceity of weddings/marriages contribute to the Church’s pastoral responsibility teach the faithful about the importance of marriage. Include at least three examples.
— Discuss the difference between “convalidation” and “radical sanation”. Include in your answer whether witnesses are required for sanations and whether consent is renewed and accepted in sanations.
— Discuss the canonical and pastoral differences between an ecclesiastical authority figure’s disregarding of the law versus one’s dispensing from the law. Give indicators by which the two actions might be distinguished. You may assume a Canon 91 actor.
— Challenge or defend the continuation of the requirement of canonical form for marriage. If you challenge form, account for Cdl. Ratinger’s 1994 remarks on same; if you defend form, account for its being the first step in the sequence that led to the ‘mid-air marriage’ case of 2018.
Fr H's comment so r:
On that mid-air marriage
January 19, 2018
On the one hand, it is extremely good that PF did not just tell them that they were All Right as they were. His action admirably made clear that they needed to get married because, despite their civil 'marriage', they were not in fact married.
Eccellente.
Clearly, [??? Do we know that?] he will first have taken them aside and absolved them from their acts of fornication, before receiving their consent in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. What's not to like?
On the other hand, canonists have been uneasy about the "wedding" in the airliner. It all interests me because twice recently, 2 January and 14 January, I have vigorously argued against the apparent belief of some super-hyper-ueberpapalists, that
the Roman Pontiff, just because he makes and dispenses from laws, is himself above the Law.
And if it were to be asserted that
"By doing X, PF tacitly dispensed himself from the law(s) against X", I would regard the implications of that approach as thoroughly disturbing ... almost like the Nazi notion that the Fuehrer's will is the Supreme Law.
The whole business would suggest the ugly idea that "I'm the Pope and so I can do anything".
Indeed he is and indeed he can't.
God bless the pair of them! And him as well!
I wonder if the journalists will check that they were canonically free to marry, and ferret around to uncover the facts about the Act of God which prevented them from marrying in due form in the first place...
Marco Tosatti comments by way of Pezzo Grosso...
Pezzo Grosso is disconsolate for what
he considers another major error by this pope
Translated from
January 19, 2018
I must say that I was expecting it a bit. After having read reports and seen the images of the mid-air marriage ‘celebrated’ by the pope, launched and disseminated by the Vatican communications machinery, and commented in various ways on the social networks, I told myself, “I’d like to know what Pezzo Grosso will write me this time.” As in fact, he did. The only surprise was that he did not do so earlier. He wrote:
Dear Tosatti,
I learn from Corriere della Sera that the pope celebrated ‘a surprise marriage’ on an airplane. The newspaper says the couple have lived together for 8 years, civilly married in 2010 and have two children but have wanted to be married in Church. So it has taken them 8 years to want to be married in Church, and then to do so on an airplane, not a church… Then, we are told by the Vatican spokesman that the formula used by the pope to marry the couple was “Are you sure? Are you both sure?”
Well, amen! To play with the sacraments, as with playing with Catholic practice in general, is dangerous. In just a few moments, the pope managed to ridicule the sacrament of matrimony and perhaps even that of penance (did they confess to him formally and did he then absolve them formally that for eight years they have been living as husband and wife without benefit of sacramental marriage?) I will not even get into other required procedures for a Catholic marriage such as prior banns, etc.
Everything with this pope seems to be part of a movie, a fiction, interpreted by an actor who is a master at improvisation, loves to spring ‘surprises’, knows how to create a true-to-life telenovela. But one no longer wonders at what he does – we suffer, and that’s our part. When I read about this latest ‘show’, O thought of Blessed Antonio Rosmini. If he had witnessed this today, then the wounds of the Church* would have been six, not five – the sixth being the perplexing exhibitionism at the summit of ‘the Church’.
*
Blessed Rosmini (1797-1855, beatified in November 2007 ) wrote a book entitled The Five Wounds of the Church, in which he says that the five main evils of the Italian Church in his time correspond to the five wounds on the hands, feet, and side of the Divine Redeemer.
- He likens the wound in Jesus's left hand to the lack of sympathy between the clergy and people in the act of public worship, which he sees as a result of a lack of adequate Christian evangelical teaching.
- And it is to be accounted for by the wound in the right hand — the insufficient education of the clergy, their secularisation and their alienation from scripture and their bishops.
- This, in turn, was both caused and perpetuated by the great wound in the side, which pierced the Heart of the Divine Sufferer, and which Rosmini sees as a parallel for the divisions among the Bishops, separating them from one another, and also from their clergy and people, forgetting their true union in the Body of Christ.
- The wound of the right foot is compared to the civil power of the Bishops making them into worldly schemers and politicians, more or less intent on selfish interests.
- The wound of the left foot is compared to events of the feudal period, when the freehold tenures of the Church were treated as fiefs by an overlord, or suzerain, who saw in the chief pastors of the flock of Christ only a particular variety of vassals or dependants.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 21/01/2018 02:34]