So I have a few thoughts on the discussion of the validity of the Bidens' marriage. Three points were discussed:
1) Was Jill Jacobs validly baptized?
2) Was Jill Jacobs validly married to Bill Stevenson?
3) Were Sen Biden and Jill Stevenson validly married?
First, I think it is safe to assume that Jill Jacobs was validly baptized because she was confirmed in the PCUSA congregation Abington Presbyterian. As far as I can tell Presbyterians required and still require baptism to be performed before a confirmation. Specific evidence of this is difficult to find since confirmation is not a sacrament in the PCUSA and the PCUSA's congregational polity makes it difficult to establish denomination-wide operational tenets. All this to say is that Jill Jacobs was baptized at some point. Now, finding evidence to verify this claim? That may be a different story, but I digress.
Second, assuming that Jill Jacobs and Bill Stevenson were both validly baptized, we may be able to assume that their marriage was valid. Of course, establishing records and determining facts would still be required to say so one way or the other.
Thirdly, and here is where I think Messrs. Condon and Flynn missed a great opportunity to discuss the laity's obligations to the Law, Sen Biden and Jill Stevenson had a Catholic priest (at least according to Wikipedia, a Jesuit priest) officiate their attempted marriage. A dispensation from form and permission to enter into mixed marriage are not terribly difficult things to obtain (my own parents did). The more interesting part here, as I see it, is not necessarily if Jill Stevenson was free to marry Sen Biden, it is what was their officiant's reaction to their attempted marriage?
This priest had to have had one of three dispositions to the marriage:
1) He performed his due diligence to the Law and the couple ensuring that they were both free to marry and proper permissions and dispensations were obtained. If so, we should assume the validity of the marriage.
2) He neglected his due diligence to either the couples' freedom to marry and/or obtaining the proper permissions and dispensations. If so, the validity of the marriage is unknown.
3) He was apathetic and/or ignorant of the need to establish freedom to marry and obtain proper permissions and dispensations. If so, the validity of the marriage is unknown.
Here is where I think the discussion could have gone: Biden and Stevenson presented themselves to a priest to be married and therefore assumed their marriage was valid. What obligations did they -- and the laity at large -- have to ensuring canonical form and norms are followed? Think back to the "we baptize" scandal of 2020 (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/after-we-baptize-scandal-have-we?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Ffr%2520matthew%2520hood%2520detroit%2520we%2520baptize&utm_medium=reader2). Had there not been video proof of Fr Matthew Hood's errant baptism, he and the faithful would have been left to assume that he had been baptized and therefore all his subsequent sacramental acts -- including his ordination -- were valid. The deference shown to clerics in the administration of sacraments is a common posture for the laity. It is akin to not questioning one's accountant when filing taxes since the accountant is the expert.
What this whole episode asks is massive: How do we trust our clerics to actually dispense God's graces to us through the sacraments?
So I have a few thoughts on the discussion of the validity of the Bidens' marriage. Three points were discussed:
1) Was Jill Jacobs validly baptized?
2) Was Jill Jacobs validly married to Bill Stevenson?
3) Were Sen Biden and Jill Stevenson validly married?
First, I think it is safe to assume that Jill Jacobs was validly baptized because she was confirmed in the PCUSA congregation Abington Presbyterian. As far as I can tell Presbyterians required and still require baptism to be performed before a confirmation. Specific evidence of this is difficult to find since confirmation is not a sacrament in the PCUSA and the PCUSA's congregational polity makes it difficult to establish denomination-wide operational tenets. All this to say is that Jill Jacobs was baptized at some point. Now, finding evidence to verify this claim? That may be a different story, but I digress.
Second, assuming that Jill Jacobs and Bill Stevenson were both validly baptized, we may be able to assume that their marriage was valid. Of course, establishing records and determining facts would still be required to say so one way or the other.
Thirdly, and here is where I think Messrs. Condon and Flynn missed a great opportunity to discuss the laity's obligations to the Law, Sen Biden and Jill Stevenson had a Catholic priest (at least according to Wikipedia, a Jesuit priest) officiate their attempted marriage. A dispensation from form and permission to enter into mixed marriage are not terribly difficult things to obtain (my own parents did). The more interesting part here, as I see it, is not necessarily if Jill Stevenson was free to marry Sen Biden, it is what was their officiant's reaction to their attempted marriage?
This priest had to have had one of three dispositions to the marriage:
1) He performed his due diligence to the Law and the couple ensuring that they were both free to marry and proper permissions and dispensations were obtained. If so, we should assume the validity of the marriage.
2) He neglected his due diligence to either the couples' freedom to marry and/or obtaining the proper permissions and dispensations. If so, the validity of the marriage is unknown.
3) He was apathetic and/or ignorant of the need to establish freedom to marry and obtain proper permissions and dispensations. If so, the validity of the marriage is unknown.
Here is where I think the discussion could have gone: Biden and Stevenson presented themselves to a priest to be married and therefore assumed their marriage was valid. What obligations did they -- and the laity at large -- have to ensuring canonical form and norms are followed? Think back to the "we baptize" scandal of 2020 (https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/after-we-baptize-scandal-have-we?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Ffr%2520matthew%2520hood%2520detroit%2520we%2520baptize&utm_medium=reader2). Had there not been video proof of Fr Matthew Hood's errant baptism, he and the faithful would have been left to assume that he had been baptized and therefore all his subsequent sacramental acts -- including his ordination -- were valid. The deference shown to clerics in the administration of sacraments is a common posture for the laity. It is akin to not questioning one's accountant when filing taxes since the accountant is the expert.
What this whole episode asks is massive: How do we trust our clerics to actually dispense God's graces to us through the sacraments?