More recent
public disagreements over whether the Roman Catholic Church can change its
teachings on Communion for remarried Catholics are growing sharper with
conservatives led by U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke making another push against loosening the rules. Burke
said allowing Communion for the divorced and remarried would complicate the
Church’s pastoral outreach and that better strategies are needed. The church currently holds (with some
exceptions) that divorce and
remarriage without a proper annulment is considered 'a grave offence against
natural law' and such individuals cannot therefore receive communion.
It is in this context that I
recently found myself taking exception.
Withholding communion (in Catholic terms ‘the real presence of Christ’)
seems to be a complete contradiction to how God works among his people. The church appears to be saying “first you
must repent and admit your sin, before you can come before God”. Whereas Jesus said "When he [the
Holy Spirit] comes, he will convict the world, and show where right and wrong
and judgement lie. He will convict them of wrong..." (John 16:8). At this point the
question that needs to be asked is simply:
‘Who convicts our heart, God or the institution? While the Church will no doubt refer its
members to the various official Vatican documents including "Concerning
the Reception of HolyCommunion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful” as submitted by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world's bishops
on October 14, 1994. Others may search for a personal and compassionate answer
by looking for a more merciful God within.
Guess what - here again the church claims its ruling has primacy over ‘personal
conscience’.
While debating the
issue on-line with a conservative Catholic news source I was surprised to learn
that some Christians believe that have a duty to support their church which includes
publically shaming divorced and remarried couples who, according to their definition,
have not received the necessary sanction from the church to receive
communion. Reminding them about the
biblical story of Jesus and the Samaritan
Woman at the Well (John 4:8) did
little to diminish their demand for proper ‘old fashioned’ justice and punishment. Did Jesus turn away from this adulteress or
did he change her heart to the incredible degree the story ends for her? Remember
this woman would probably not have had access to a bible and definitely not the
Roman Catholic Catechism.
Of course in Matthew
5:29 we hear Jesus speaking to the Pharisees when asked by them “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And Jesus responds
“whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries commits
adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” But
did Jesus walk away from them? The
Eucharist was instituted to bring people together ‘in communion with one
another and God’ - not for the purpose
of judging others.
Is should be obvious to readers that Jesus never shunned sinners in fact he is
often seen surrounded by them. So why then do some members of the clergy
insist that the Eucharist should be publically withheld from the divorced or
remarried? Yet we continue to use vengeful punishment language all the time.
Jesus often used hyperbole and in the case of remarriage used it to underscore its sacredness. However a few individuals prefer a literal interpretation. O.K. then when was the last time you attended Mass and you were greeted with a parish full of one eyed sinners? Because Jesus, again using hyperbole, said this in Matthew 25 about adultery, “If you’re right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. Let us not get caught up interpreting everything at the expense of Jesus’ call to love and not punish our neighbour. The role of the Church is simply to walk with sinners and lead them to discover the God within – not outside.
Jesus often used hyperbole and in the case of remarriage used it to underscore its sacredness. However a few individuals prefer a literal interpretation. O.K. then when was the last time you attended Mass and you were greeted with a parish full of one eyed sinners? Because Jesus, again using hyperbole, said this in Matthew 25 about adultery, “If you’re right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. Let us not get caught up interpreting everything at the expense of Jesus’ call to love and not punish our neighbour. The role of the Church is simply to walk with sinners and lead them to discover the God within – not outside.
It cannot be the role
of the Church, and that includes the laity, to DETERMINE the sins of
others. We may have a role to play in teaching people about sin, but in
the end only God can convict a heart. And the only way to the heart is
through Jesus. Why then would some Catholics insist on taking away his
‘real presence’ through the sacrament of the Eucharist? Isn't that the
place where Catholic hearts are renewed? Church rules demand that only
when sin is acknowledged and the person is truly repentant may Catholics celebrate
the sacrament of reconciliation and finally receive communion. But must that now be preceded with punishment? When Jesus spoke about sin did he really turn
his back on the sinner and demand some form of revenge or punishment? Do
we still believe that God is vengeful and far more interested in our sins then
our potential?
Anyone familiar with
Jesus’ actions and teachings, especially his Parables, would understand that he
defied the ways of the world again and again. It can thus be said that
Jesus presents the ‘upside down values of the world’. From the point of
view from the world they are always seen as ludicrous. The problem with a lot of Roman Catholic issues today, is that some of
the teachings are presented and understood by some as being in legal and
ABSOLUTE terms. If only life were that simple. That is not how God
deals with his people as unique individuals. Remember, God promised he
would never leave us orphaned. Thus, for Jesus to withhold himself i.e.,
the Eucharist – for whatever reason – cannot in any way express what he does
for any sinner. Think again about the woman at the well, the sinners he
surrounded himself with. It is important to understand that
Jesus was not the least bit interested in PUNITIVE JUSTICE. He always
choose the more demanding and difficult path of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.
Perhaps we are still stuck on a religion based on reward and punishment.
Only by making the distinction between punitive
and restorative justice can we begin to understand God’s redemptive justice. Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM, one of my favourite
spiritual teachers, suggests that for many God’s love or grace is sadly based
on a false sense of justice which demands that sin must be punished and
followed by a lengthy period of repentance. Fr. Rohr calls this a religion
based on meritocracy. But Rohr provides the following beautiful
illustration of God’s intended grace pattern as follows:
As some of us still understand it:
Sin - - - >punishment - - - >repentance - - - > transformation
But the actual grace pattern is:
Sin - -
- >unconditional love- - - >transformation - - - >repentance
Note how
this pattern is perfectly mirrored in the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman
at the well. Here you will not find the
slightest hint of punishment, only redemption in the form of God’s healing and restorative
justice. Perhaps by seeing divorce and remarriage in this new light may we finally bring
the necessary compassion and understanding to this controversial issue thus fulfilling Pope Francis’ desire to bring a deeper pastoral care of marriage and
divorce.
See also: update on the Synod to date: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/bombshell-document-vatican-synod
Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment