Pope Francis and pastoral care of remarriage & divorce

Upon his return from World Youth Day in July 2013 Pope Francis surprised his followers by making reference to the predicament of divorced and remarried Catholics.  He told reporters that the next synod (October 2014 and now in session) would explore a "somewhat deeper pastoral care of marriage," including the question of the eligibility of divorced. At the same time Pope Francis added that church law governing marriage annulments has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this.  Such problems, he said, exemplified a general need for forgiveness in the church today. The church is a mother, and she must travel this path of mercy, and find a form of mercy for all, the pope added.  This did not sit well with many traditional Catholics.

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. 

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:

http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2014/10/living-in-sin-divorce-remarriage.html

http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/search/label/family%20values

http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2014/03/pope-francis-on-divorce-remarriage.html

Dutch gay protest over Communion

Headline: from BBC NEWS, Feb. 28, 2010 'Den Bosch, Netherlands, Dutch gay protest over communion'

"Hundreds of Dutch activists, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, recently staged a protest at a Mass over the Roman Catholic policy of denying communion to practising homosexuals. The dispute began earlier this month when a priest in a nearby town refused communion to an openly gay man. Several hundred demonstrators, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, left the church in protest. A man at the centre of the row has said he wants equal treatment - if he is regarded as a sinner, he wants the priest to refuse communion to all other sinners too".

The BBC story was subsequently also reported in the Holy Post section of the National Post. As could be expected it raised a Holy furor by some bloggers.

Note: As author of this blog I do not condone the reported outlandish behaviour by the gay demonstrators on Church property in any way. My primary aim is to draw attention to those who use communion as a means of determining 'who is worthy and who is not'. This is strictly a matter between the individual and God. Any teaching that diminishes the individual or group in the eyes of God and prohibits them from taking part in the sacraments cannot be considered to have been communicated by an unconditionally loving God.

Many Catholics see official church teachings as the final word on many of the issues facing the world today. These same individuals believe that to be a 'good Catholic' means to accept these teachings without question and without any private or personal discernment- and the need to interpret these teachings against the greater Gospel values. Perhaps more importantly Catholics need to understand that official teachings on homosexuality are quite recent. Definitive Vatican teachings on sexuality are very much a mid-twentieth century phenomenon. The 1969 Catholic Catechism describes homosexuality as follows: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them".

Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for them]".

These conflicting statements reveal the struggle in which the Catholic Church finds itself today. Regardless, Catholics are encouraged by Canon Law to seek resolution to these important questions by considering the matter in the light of exercising religious freedom, as well as our responsibility to follow one's informed conscience.

Because some Catholics have adopted a comfort zone based on certain adopted 'belief systems' it may be of value to consider the following reflection:

"We must move from a belief-based religion to a practice-based religion, or little will change. We will merely continue to argue about what we are supposed to believe and who the unbelievers are." - Richard Rohr, The Naked Now

Readers to the blog on the Holy Post were then invited to again reflect on the events that took place in Holland in the following context:

The gay group protesting in Holland apparently wore pink wigs and clothing making them visual targets for easy identification. In this guise they are, according to some, sinners who have no right to receive communion or be given shelter in any official church facilities. The rest of us can easily hide our sins underneath our Sunday fineries while we piously receive communion and then smugly condemn those who wear their sins on their sleeves. (Remember a vast majority of Catholics do not follow church teachings on birth control).

And quoting Fr. Richard Rohr "We Christians, who dare to worship the scapegoat, Jesus, became many times in history the primary scapegoaters ourselves—of Jews, heretics, sinners, witches, homosexuals, the poor, the natives in the New World, slaves, other denominations, and other religions. It's rather hard to believe that we missed such a central message.

The pattern of exporting our evil elsewhere, and righteously hating it there, with impunity, is in the hardwiring of all peoples. After all, our religious task is to separate from evil, isn't it? That is the well-disguised lie! Any exclusionary process of thinking, any exclusively dualistic thinking, will always create violent and hateful people on some level.

This I state as an absolute, and precisely because the cross revealed it to me. The crucifixion scene is our standing icon stating both the problem and the solution for all of history."

Have we forgotten that there was a religious group in the previous century who also wore a specific badge that gave some the right to kill them - all 6 million or so - including gays because they were gay?

To avoid a situation similar to what happened in Holland this week it might help by putting a big sign outside churches stating: 'Homosexuals not welcome!' Or better yet 'Sinners not Welcome'! that would give Jesus the day off from his already hectic Sunday schedule.

For some Holy Post readers any defence in support of homosexuals was seen as pure heresy. One reader stated:

"There are NO conflicting Church teachings on homosexuality. While we all have the responsibility to follow our own conscience, we also have the responsibility to form it well, and to know and understand what these teachings are. Religious freedom does not entail just doing your own thing ... otherwise, the door of the RCC is wide open ... for you to leave, that is".

To which I posted the following:

These issues should never become points of division. Rather they should be seen as opportunities for dialogue and exploration. God's creation is ongoing and so should our understanding of humankind. Based on your insensitive judgment - If I were to differentiate RCC from Christianity the latter as following Christ, then I should gladly accept your invitation to leave – but remember that doesn't solve the problem. It needs healing. Remain open to the Spirit – its A Matter of the Heart!

Which prompted the following retort:

"I have nothing against "remaining open to the spirit". However, one needs wisdom to discern spirits. Do you believe you are holier and wiser than 2000 years of tradition and teaching? Do you believe you can abolish what is written in scripture? Do you believe creation is in some state of "spiritual evolution"? Because if so, you classify as New Age".

Still another individual wrote:

"This isn't about scapegoating it's about not profaning the body of Christ. It was a different thing if the priest had known what the Carnival Prince was up to, but he was aggressively flaunting sin for all to see. This is causing scandal. As for all the exclusionary talk - it was Jesus who said enter through the narrow gate. We can't pick and choose what we want to follow".

Prompting this personal message:

I believe when Jesus spoke of the 'narrow gate' he was metaphorically referring to 'the way of love'. That is without question the most difficult gate for us to enter and path to follow. At times we feel so challenged (offended) that we re-act with instant hatred. At that point Jesus calls us to be pro-active and seek the narrow gate. It means dropping all our pretenses, our biases, our judgments, our ego and letting the love of Christ become our way of seeing, responding, etc.

Which was followed by this unfortunate reply:

"You are entitled to your own opinion but there's something called Objective morality. A Natural Law. Love is not divorced from it. Instead of spending your time reading New Age philosophies, you might want to study Catholicism and its teachings on Realist ethics, etc."

The question of Homosexuality and their participation in the Eucharist is a very sensitive and difficult issue for a lot of people, especially those who feel bound to strict church teaching. But as the institution continues in the direction of more absolutes, rigidity and exclusivity it becomes increasingly difficult for many of us to remain neutral. Some of the advice offered is growing tiresome if not typical - 'if you don't like it leave'. This could hardly be the expected response from Jesus. Still, there are others who would prefer that we do not discuss such issues, since it might lead to confrontation and division. For those people I would suggest that they read about what went on behind the scenes during Vatican II, the argument about circumcision between Peter and Paul, the confrontation between Jesus and some of the Pharisees! It could be said that for the sake of peace perhaps it is better to avoid any controversial issues altogether. But then I find myself asking is that being faithful to what I have come to believe in my heart? (there are times in my life when I find homosexual behaviour, i.e., parades extremely offensive) But ultimately I have to ask myself 'what would Jesus do? Would he truly refuse those who seek him regardless of their background?

In a final attempt to bring this matter to a level of unbiased Christian compassion and understanding I ask readers to consult a recognized expert on sexual behaviour in the Roman Catholic Church. A.W. Richard Sipe is devoted full time to research into the sexual and celibate practises of Roman Catholic bishops and priests. His website can be reached at http://www.richardsipe.com/

which covers such concerns as:

• Celibacy/Sex/Catholic Church
  
• Gay Bishops - see also section on Natural Law
  
• Sexual Active Catholic Clergy
  
• Celibacy, sex and research, etc.
  

Note: A.W. Sipe was the chief investigator for the sexual abuse case which took place at a Catholic institution in Canada almost twenty years ago.

One final question: Is it perhaps time to reflect on the unique gifts homosexuals bring to the church and the rest of humanity?

In the meantime readers are invited to reflect on the following article 'What should a Gay Catholic Do? at
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=81913739-3048-741E-5405178212524077 by Fr. James Martin, S.J.

IMPORTANT NOTE: just days after this post readers of the Washington Post learned that Desmond Tutu made this comment about homosexuals "It is time to stand up against another wrong. Gay, Lesbian, transexual and transgendered people are part of so many families. They are part of the human family. They are part of God's family".

Honouring our unique gift

In a universe of time and place no two snowflakes and no two human beings have ever been found the same. Within our universe exist billions of galaxies and within each galaxy exist billions of stars. No two galaxies have ever been found the same. At the opposite end of the scale scientist are discovering that similar comparisons exists within our microscopic world While the Bible tells us that God created each person in his image it should remind us that we are each unique reflections of the creator's infinite reality. We cannot even imagine what God looks like except to look more deeply into the heart of creation itself. We cannot expect to have two people to experience creation in the same way. Nor should we expect them to express their experience in the same way. It is simply illogical to ask any two people to agree to any particular set of 'beliefs. Each person will only understand these religious formulas and beliefs in the context of their own unique experience. Recognizing and respecting the unique qualities of each person therefore may call for a quantum leap for some who believe that unity requires a strict adherence to a set of rules. Our hope for this troubled world calls for expressions of diversity – not similarity. The desire for similarity creates jealousy and the evil of competition. Similarity restricts our experience of God by limiting our experience of God to manmade rules and regulations. Diversity opens the world to infinite possibilities and allows us to awaken the hidden God within. Sacred scripture for each religion is filled with stories of people's unique experience of God. So too we must also live our own unique and sacred story in the presence of our Creator.

Many of our religious institutions follow a prescribed doctrine of beliefs. To challenge these beliefs is often considered heresy. Through ages past and among some extreme examples of religious fundamentalism these challenges are often met with threats and acts of deathly violence. Strangely enough these very negative responses ignore the infinite nature of the Creator they are trying to protect. Our Creator does not need our protection otherwise we are merely confusing him with gods of a lesser nature. While Institutional religions have been largely responsible for creating institutional responses to honour our God they seldom encourage its followers to look beyond the immediate. This would require change. And institutional religion fears change. They fear change because it takes our unique experience out of their control.

Today I met a man who had recently lost his wife due to a very lengthy illness. In his grief he shared how people had tried to comfort him with well meaning phrases such as 'time heals all wounds', or 'your wife is now in a better place', etc. Tragically he shared how these words did little to lessen his present pain. In conclusion our friend tried to diminish his own pain by stating 'Oh, well I suppose I'm lucky compared to the people in Haiti' If he could not recognize his own pain as a unique experience, how could we expect him to overcome the grief for others? What have we learned about the gift of grief? Do we not know that it is the God within that grieves for us and with us?

As a former Catholic I understood that the sacrament of communion meant that we honoured the gift of the God within. Upon reception of that sacrament we were called to reach out to others and creation in a manner that reveals God's Revelation to the world. What an amazing Creator we have knowing that we might fail miserably within mere seconds of receiving his unique gift. Communion begins as a simple gathering of unique individuals, regardless of race colour or religion. And, regardless of how it is celebrated, must be understood as sharing without dividing. Real communion is the starting point calling for our unique God like response to others and the rest of creation. It must therefore never be celebrated is a mere ritual. Communion as celebrated in the Catholic sense therefore represents a unique way of celebrating the God within. However, our Creator does not make demands as to how we celebrate his divine indwelling. Honouring the God within our neighbour it is not about membership to any religious institution nor is it about rituals and Holy buildings and statues. It is simply a response to the quiet voice within that would have us accept all others as equals and unique gifts from our Creator.