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

Living in Sin? Divorce & Remarriage

Note: The following true story by Daniel C. Maguire Professor  of Ethics at Marquette University appears in his very concise & recommended book  'Ethics - A Complete Method for Moral Choice' (2010)  will help many Catholics to better understand the Christian ethics benind divorce and remarriage. Reprinted here with kind permission from Professor Daniel C. Maguire. 

Living in Sin?  

"I'll call them Jim and Sally, though those are not their names. Members of Jim's family called me and told me this story. Jim, they said, was not an icon of generosity or considerateness, but surprising things were happening to him. After their Tuesday night bowling, Jim's family gathered as usual for pizza and beer. Suddenly Jim was insisting that they sit at the table waited on by a young woman named Sally, and the usually tight-fisted Jim was insisting on huge tips for her. Love was in the air, but there was also pain. Sally had been married to a violent man. She had three children. She stayed in this marriage because she was a strict Catholic who had promised to take that man "for better or for worse? She got the "worse" but felt bound by her vow. When the last child was born with problems related to beatings Sally had sustained from her husband, Sally finally took the children and left. Life was difficult. She had to work, get help from friends and family to look after the children, and ward off unfriendly visits from her husband.

During this time she met Jim, and both fell deeply in love. They could not marry in the church and could not consider marrying anywhere else. They would tearfully decide to stop seeing one another, but one or the other would break down shortly thereafter and check in to see how the other was doing. Finally they decided to marry in a civil ceremony. Life immediately got better for the little family. Jim took on these children as though they were his own. He was offered and accepted a job in Los Angeles, and now Sally's ex-husband, left behind in Phoenix, was no longer a problem. A year later Sally became pregnant. They were thrilled that they would have their first child together, but their happiness was clouded by church teaching at the time that said they were "living in sin:'

Two months into the pregnancy, doctors told Sally that she had a tumor that required surgery. Sally was in a panic. Her life was in danger and she was "living in sin:' It was at this moment that her family contacted me.

At Catholic University we were in our final week of class. I went in the next day and told the story to the class. Applying what I had taught them in theory, I told them what I thought should be done. I said, "Given what I have told you, that first marriage had failed. The second marriage was a success, a great success, one that brought healing and beauty into the lives of Jim and Sally and their three children, who had their first experience of a peaceful home. A priest should go out there and tell Jim and Sally that he could marry them in a private Catholic marriage in their home. This would be strictly forbidden by the church hierarchy, but it is the right and moral thing to do, because of new developments in Catholic theology. The priest should celebrate a private liturgy for them to wrap the moment with all the reassuring symbols of their faith tradition. Then, with their minds at peace, and feeling themselves truly husband and wife, Sally could proceed to surgery:'

Exorcising Demons of Habit

When I finished my evaluation, the bell rang, ending class. I wondered how my transfixed class of nuns and priests would react. The answer came quickly. A nun who had been in the convent for some twenty years approached me with a red face. I expected a rebuke. Instead, she said with impatience: 'Don't just tell us about this. Get a priest out there to do it!" I told her I planned to. Next in line, and speaking softly, was a priest who had never spoken a word during the class. He said, "I am a priest in Los Angeles, and I will be going there tomorrow after your exam. I would be glad to do that for Jim and Sally:'

This priest could not tell anyone he was going to do this because his archbishop was one of the most rigid of Catholic hierarchs and would reject him from ministry. So the next morning in our last class, before the afternoon test, I announced that a priest from this class was going to go to Los Angeles to take care of Jim and Sally in the way I had suggested. The class rose in a standing ovation for this unknown priest. The priest himself, with his face bright scarlet, rose and clapped, with only he and I knowing he was clapping for himself.

When the class settled down, I completed the theoretical teaching on the right to remarriage after a failed first marriage. I said the ideal of a permanent, faithful marriage cannot always be realized. When such an ideal is realized in a second marriage, that marriage is not to be called unholy. Not a single doubt about that was raised in that class or in the exam that followed.

The story had a happy ending. The operation on Sally's tumor was successful and did not interrupt the pregnancy.

Now to the role of Gemut in this incident: Did my theoretical and historical lectures on marriage and divorce do the main teaching? Or did the intense feelings act like an exorcism to drive out the demons of habit in the minds of my hearers? Was affect or reason the main teacher? The answer is not an either/or matter, but more in the realm of reciprocity. The affections played a critical role, but the teachings that had been poured into the minds gave some freedom to the heart. Better yet, both routes to truth, reason and affect, aided and abetted one another. Of such stuff are we knowers made."

Pope Francis on Divorce & Remarriage

In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (the Joy of the Gospel), Pope Francis offered the pastors of the Catholic Church guidance on how to interpret traditional teaching concerning marriage and family life. One principle was that “the Church has rules or precepts which may have been quite effective in their time, but no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people’s lives”. 

 

The Catholic News Service on Feb. 27 quoted retired Cardinal Walter Kasper  addressing the world's cardinals “ The Catholic Church needs to find a way to offer healing, strength and salvation to Catholics whose marriages have failed, who are committed to making a new union work and who long to do so within the church and with the grace of Communion.”  He went on to say “Jesus' teaching on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage is clear, the retired German cardinal said, and it would harm individuals and the church to pretend otherwise, and one cannot propose a solution different from or contrary to the words of Jesus".

  Now perhaps we can understand why the Catholic News mentioned that the Vatican did not want to publish the Cardinal’s text but they somehow mysteriously obtained a copy.

Kasper’s biblical interpretation on the question of ‘divorce’ had already been challenged previously by many others.  For example Catholic theologian Hans Kűng last year (November 2013) challenged the biblical quote used by Kasper by reflecting on Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium as follows: 

  The Christians of the New Testament did not understand Jesus’ words on divorce as a law but as an ethical directive. The failure of a marriage obviously did not correspond to what men and women were created for. Only dogmatic rigidity, however, cannot take seriously that already in the days of the Apostles, Jesus’ words on divorce were applied with a certain flexibility, namely in cases of “porneia/unchastity” (cf. Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and when a Christian and a nonbeliever separated (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15). Already in the Early Church, one was obviously aware that there were situations when a further life together was unacceptable. However, to assume that remarried divorcees in general just casually and light-heartedly gave up their first marriages for trivial reasons is malicious. There is no more bitter experience than the failure of a love relationship on which one has set the hopes of a lifetime. In view of the millions of Catholics the world over nowadays who, although they are members of the Church, cannot take part in its sacramental life, it is of little help to keep quoting one Vatican document after the other without convincingly answering the decisive question as to why there should be no forgiveness just for this particular failure. Hasn’t the Magisterium already failed miserably as far as contraception is concerned and thus been unable to assert itself in the Church? A similar failure in the question of divorce should be avoided at all costs.

While the contradiction is strikingly obvious but the reasons behind it are not.  An editorial from the ‘The Tablet’ a U.K. Catholic weekly suggest that the conservative views held be Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller the Prefect to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) may still carry considerable influence among his supporters within the Vatican.   The Tablet goes on to say “worried observers are already asking whether Pope Emeritus Ratzinger is in fact operating as a kind of “shadow Pope” behind the scenes through Archbishop Müller and perhaps Francis confirmed him in office quite to soon.”

And Pope Francis?  Hans Kűng thinks the troubling issue rests with the Pope as he wrestles with a church that for too long has resisted change because:

   

•    For many the situation is self-contradictory – on the one side, church reform and on the other, remarried divorcees.
•      The Pope wants to move forward – the CDF prefect puts on the brakes.
•    The Pope has actual people in mind – the prefect above all has traditional Catholic doctrine in mind.
•    The Pope wants to practise mercy – the prefect appeals to God’s holiness and justice.

While the issue of divorce is stoking a spirited debate between Catholic cardinals and revealing the challenges and expectations for Pope Francis after his promises to put the Church more in touch with modern life.  The expectations for many Catholic divorced and remarried couples may have to put on hold for just a little bit longer.

Confusion on Annulment, Divorce and Remarriage

The October 27^th. issue of a well known national Catholic weekly featured two separate articles about Catholics who may be considering a possible annulment of their marriage.  The first article by Francis X. Rocca (Catholic News Service) immediately dashed any hopes for divorced couples based on Pope Francis’ recent comment that the Synod of Bishops would explore a “somewhat deeper pastoral care of these difficult marriages”. 
In contrast, another article in the same weekly warns readers that the Church can no longer avoid dealing with marriages involving abusive spouses. This is without question an issue which for many years has been considered a taboo by many including the Vatican.  According to newly gathered statistics, a staggering forty per cent of the cases handled through Catholic Family Services involves some level of spousal abuse.

 

 

 

While Pope Francis recently raised hope for remarried Catholics; a patriarchy of celibate individuals i.e. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, subsequently and  quickly reaffirmed the well established Church teaching barring divorced and remarried members from receiving communion.  Exactly how did an imperfect Church, made up entirely of sinners, arrive at a decision calling for punishment of these unfortunate members of our community?  Why do we think that these struggling individuals should be banished from receiving communion?   People in pain need God more than ever.  How and when did the Church think it could override a Creator who not only understands our pain but can help us to overcome our failings? Is the Church incapable of positively reinforcing the bonds of these marriages?  Several years ago a deacon delivered a homily at our parish in which he warned "Jesus walks away from the sinner!"  Based on such examples what are we saying about God and about Catholicism?  

 

 

 

   If we are in a state of religious confusion about annulment, divorce and remarriage it is only because we, especially the laity, have not been willing to share our experiences about such trying and difficult issues. At the same time, if we want to develop healthier attitudes about sex, celibacy, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and other pressing religious issues we will need to share and listen to those who have failed, suffered and frequently questioned or felt separated from our unconditionally loving Creator. One such individual is Fr. Ronald Rolheiser.  His recent article ‘You don’t get what you want, you get what you need’ (see The Catholic Register Oct. 20, 2013) speaks about celibacy in a way not usually heard of from among members of the clergy. In speaking about his spiritual journey just six months beyond his chemotherapy treatments he shares this incredible insight on the matter, “What I learned from walking the road in the company of three close friends was how spoiled and immature I'd become. Having lived as a celibate priest, outside of the constrictive demands of marriage, children and family for more than 40 years, I realized how idiosyncratic and self-centered the patterns and habits of my life had become. I was used to calling the shots for my own life, at least in its day-to-day rhythms”.  Rolheiser’s very personal experience comes from suffering and speaks to us from below not from above as so many clerics are want to do.

 

Finally, when it comes to present church teachings on divorce and remarried couples; I am reminded of a priest who spoke about the matter in a completely new way. He said “If couples involved in a difficult marriage, one that is destined to fail, but stick together for the sake of their children, they should be given a medal from the Church, as soon as the kids are old enough to support themselves.” This was the same priest who once privately shared how he had attended Mass at the Glass Cathedral in California.  Dressed in his civvies, sitting at the far end of this magnificent building, he was approached by an elder and asked if he would like to bring up the gifts at the appropriate moment.  Without a moment of hesitation this priest accepted his humble request. The greatest stories and teachers in the world are those who like Jacob wrestled with God before  accepting his humble offering of an indestructible faith.      

 

  The only humility that is really ours is not that which we try to show before God in prayer, but that which we carry with us in our daily conduct.    Andrew Murray