The Tablet Blog

Communion for the remarried - forbidden tool of evangelisation?

Perhaps I may be allowed one or two comments on the very thoughtful responses to my previous blog posting on communion for the divorced and remarried. Readers might also wish to comment on Clifford Longley's column in this week's Tablet.

My own main concern was to raise the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried in the context of the New Evangelisation. The Eucharist, the source and summit of the faith, is the primary 'tool' of evangelisation. It was Christ, really present in the Mass - I knew and know - who invited me into the Church. The same must be true for many. Without the Mass, there is no Church. Queen Elizabeth I knew this only too well, and that is why she had those who celebrated it hung drawn and quartered. And that is why the Tyburn Martyrs were willing to die in the way she ordained for them.

We live in a world starved of Christ, that feeds itself on hopeless substitutes. When people at some point come to realise they have been deceived, they look for the truth. As long as the Church has a place in the public square, there is a chance they will find it. These people, with all their imperfections, have been invited, knowingly or unknowingly, by Christ, perfect friend of the imperfect. To a large proportion of these the Church then says, 'We are sorry, but you cannot share the food that sustains us.' What assessment are they likely to make of this pronouncement? And what assessment, as Christians, should we make of it?

As a convert, I have many fond memories of my RCIA class, but the worst - recalled with horror still - is of a married couple being told, just before Easter, that they could not be received, because their circumstances - a divorce history - would not permit it. We had talked and prayed with them since the previous October. We belonged together. And they slunk away into the night - a bit like the rich man turning down Christ's invitation, but not in this case through their own volition but instead because they had been rejected by the place to which Christ had brought them.

May I also say that this discussion is not about obedience. I for one, and others too, would not be having it if we did not understand that obligation. It is by maintaining this obligation on the part of the faithful that the Church manages to stand, with all its faults, against a fallen world.

But there is also a good deal of misinformation about the annulment process. Let me simply say this. It is presented as a process that brings healing. In the experience of many, it reopens wounds that were healed in such a cruel manner that they might never heal again.

As a Catholic convert who knows the joys of being Catholic, I want everyone to be able to share these joys. And if this is not the impulse behind the New Evangelisation, what is? This is why I was disappointed with our own bishops when they said, in this context, that they would prioritise 'lapsed' Catholics. These Catholics need to be brought back, but it seems to me they already have enough graces to return if they choose to hear the call. What about the millions in the wilderness, 'in the roads and the lanes', 'in the highways and along the hedges' (Luke 14:23)? What about them?

James Roberts is Assistant Editor (Foreign News) of The Tablet.

While entirely in sympathy with the thrust of the article, may I be permitted to point out that the reason that Catholic priests were persecuted under Queen Elizabeth I of England was that the then Pope had issued his Bull 'Regnans in excelsis', which declared her deposed as Queen and excommunicated not only the Queen herself but anyone who maintained any allegiance to her. The issuing of this Bull was a disaster for English Catholics. It amounted to a declaration of war by the Catholic Church against the English crown - the Tyburn martyrs and others were executed for treason, not for heresy, as they were fully paid-up and card-carrying representatives of an organisation dedicated to the Queen's overthrow. It also left a tragic legacy of suspicion against English Catholics that may not yet be quite dead - in my own lifetime I have encountered a feeling that you can't be a loyal British subject if you're a Catholic. I understand, by the way, that the memory of what 'Regnans in excelsis' did to English Catholics was instrumental in the decision of the Vatican not to excommunicate Hitler (for fear of the consequences for German Catholics). That said, I entirely agree with the article. I remember reading the late Fr Hugh Bridge of Kent fulminating about the fact that, of those whose original relationships had broken down and had subsequently married another person, those who had entered the original relationship without submitting it for the blessing of the Church in marriage were free to receive the Sacrament, while those who had taken the trouble to marry in the first place were not.

The claim that the Church's divinely ordained rules on marriage are 'a michine for creating lapsed Catholics' is nonsense. If someobne chooses to 're-marry' whilst his wife (her husband) is still alive, he has ipso facto decisively rejected Catholic doctrine and chosen to become a lapsed Catholic. The choice to reverse that process lies entirely in his own hands. The Church is not stopping him from reversing it. Nanda, in the small sample size comprising people I know who have obtained a declaration of nullity, it took from three months to a maximum of six months from the first application to the final declaration, and cost next to nothing. Those cases which take longer are when the other spouse chooses to vigorously contest the application.

The term 'annulment process' possibly comes from the fact that the nullity decree takes a fair amount of time to come by and that there is a set of procedures to follow (interviews, consultations and the tribunals- all done at diocesan level, but still in no less than 18 months). Having said that, it is a vital tool to be used in evangelization and should be part of good pastoral care. The Church should never operate in a 'reward-or-punishment scheme'. By the same token, we are not members of the body of Christ to score 'brownie points' in heaven. Our faith should lead us to something much greater, where all sins, divisions, inclusions and exclusions will be redeemed: it is called the Resurrection.

In the debates during Vatican II, Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh of Antioch, in referring to the recalcitrance of many of his fellow bishops about many matters pertaining to marriage, had this to say: 'And are we not entitled to ask if certain positions are not the outcome of outmoded ideas and, perhaps, a bachelor psychosis on the part of those unacquainted with this sector of life?'� Perhaps his comment might be very appropriate to the subject at hand?

Re-Anon and her divorce from a violent and schizophrenic husband. If she has not re-married or entered into another sexual relationship and her conscience is clear about her current moral life there should be no obstacle to her receiving the Eucharist. In fact in her situation she should be encouraged to make use of all the sources of grace available in the sacramental and liturgical life of the church.

Thank you, James, for excellent article. Communion for the remarried is an urgent topic that calls for honest discussion of topics like: * Jesus' words about divorce should be understood to apply to people who walk out on their partner, not to people who have been walked out on * Peter and Paul both allowed for remarriage exceptions, showing that Jesus' words are an ideal, not an absolute * The annulment process in the Church should be done in the local diocese, not in the Vatican whose slow process has left millions of people in limbo * Over the years, a number of bishops' confereneces have called for a more humane teaching on Communion for remarried people. But the Pope's latest statement shows that the bishops' calls are not being heard * In practice, on the ground, very few priests are refusing Communion to married people. The present law is an unjust one, and unjust laws can be ignored. The Vatican is going one way, pastoral practice is going another. When will law catch up with custom? What needs New Evangelisation most of all and first of all is the Papacy/Vatican/Curia....whose views, teaching and example continue to diverge ever wider from the teaching of Vatican II and the love of Jesus Christ To try to support people who are trying to live according to the love of Jesus as expressed in the vision of Vatican II, I have helped start a new website: www.v2catholic.com The excellent above blog will be linked on the June 22 menu of www.v2catholic.com

Tracking, another difference is that the vow a priest makes is between him and the Church. In the case of marriage, another party is involved - his wife. What of her rights, and the rights of any children? And it actually does go both ways. Not only may priests give up their vows to marry, but a married couple may, provided it is by mutual agreement and there are no dependent children, become a priest (or monk) and a nun. It is possible that the Church may even in some cases ordain a man whose wife has deserted him for another through no fault of his own and where there is no hope of reconciliation of the married couple.

Tracking, you are entitled to your opinion, although I think you reveal your lack of the proper process. Firstly clergy cannot just leave and get married, they must apply for laicisation and to be freed from the promise of celibacy. The annulment process is much easier in comparison. I know many priests who have been waiting years for the Vatican to respond. Secondly, if a priest leaves active ministry and attempts marriage without the above (and obviously not in the Catholic Church), then that priest automatically ceases to be able to receive the Eucharist. Do not assume that the law of the Church is softer on the clergy in these matters.

I have always thought that the difference between priests and religious being relieved of their vows and being allowed to marry and married not being allowed the same is unfair. I know the background of why but when it comes down to it all those vows were made for life - so how come the church sees fit to think it's fine to let their own change their minds?

Anon, from what you have said you would have a very good case for a declaration of nullity (there is no such thing as ' the annulment process') should you wish to re-marry. The parish priest or RCIA class leader who allowed a couple to join the RCIA process and participate in it for 6 months, without even asking them the basic question of whether they had been married before, should be sacked. And doubly so for then letting them 'slink away' without suggesting they investigate the possibility of a declaration of nullity of the prior marriage.

Anon, I am a little concerned about your comment. Who judged you? Who punished you? If what you describe is true, the Church would never had denied you the Eucharist (did you re-marry?) If I interpret your words correctly, it was not the Church that denied you the Eucharist.

I read the comments about divorce and communion with some questions in my mind. I was married to someone who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia a year after we married. He tried to kill me twice and I left him. I divorced him and can apparently therefore no longer receive communion. Perhaps death is preferable, who knows. That was 34 years ago. I had no contact with him for 16 years but have looked after him for the last 17 years and am now his power of attorney. Should I have stayed to follow my vows and run the risk of being killed and then left our child without either parent or should I have left? The attitude of the Church is unnecessarily hurtful and extremely judgmental. I cannot believe for a single instant that Jesus would have behaved in the way the Church behaves. It seems to me that there is a parallel in the church, namely priests and religious who work out that the vocation they thought they had may have been an error and they leave the religious orders. Christ and God are perfection, and still they break the vows they had taken. Yet, they are not denied communion. Very strange... They took vows and I took vows. They break them and I broke mine. I am judged and 'punished', and they are not. It does not matter how the Pope spells it out, it does not make Christian sense to me.