In October the synod of bishops is due to resume its search for a consensus on such contentious issues as homosexuality and remarriage after divorce. The preliminary document published this week, the Instrumentum Laboris, offers a serious analysis of the problems facing marriage and family life. It is less consensual about solutions. It implicitly accepts that the cultural context has altered and in many places Catholics are becoming more tolerant, including how they regard homosexuality and divorce. But that is where views diverge.
There is still a formidable body of opinion among bishops worldwide that cultural change does not justify a change in pastoral practice. They would regard any relaxation of the rule whereby divorced and remarried Catholics are barred from Holy Communion as a betrayal of the fundamental principle that marriage is indissoluble. Some bishops still support the policy laid down by John Paul II in 1981 – that divorced and remarried couples should refrain from sexual intimacy. There is a larger body that finds that position too harsh, and looks for a more merciful approach. Suggestions as to how that might happen vary considerably. None is ideal.
The annulment process could be simplified and speeded up, and perhaps delegated to parish priests. Priests could be given discretion based on the circumstances of the breakdown of the first marriage, for instance whether the remarried Catholic had wilfully caused that breakdown or was an innocent party to it, and also based on an assessment of the stability of the second relationship. Many priests will not welcome these additional responsibilities; some will oppose them on principle.
Another suggestion is the possibility of readmitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion after they have followed a “penitential pathway”, presumably including absolution from whatever sins they may have committed. This has been mentioned by Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster, but he has not developed the idea further. It responds to the hope that the Church should show a more merciful face to Catholics in second marriages. In that spirit the Instrumentum Laboris talks of the widespread desire to “integrate” divorced and remarried Catholics into the life of the Church, which could mean ending the exclusion of such people from roles such as that of head teacher in a Catholic school.
The “penitential pathway” idea may be the best hope of reconciling as many bishops as possible to a relaxation of the existing rule, but it is not without difficulties. Would a divorced and remarried Catholic be asked to “repent” marrying a second time? Would the penitential pathway seem too much like a political fudge, in effect accelerating the trend for Catholic remarried divorcees to receive Communion regardless of the rules – which in any case are only self-enforced? Indeed, putting trust in the conscientious decisions of divorced and remarried Catholics whether they should receive Communion or not might be the only realistic way forward. But to break the impasse by saying that officially may be further than the synod is ready to go.
25 June 2015, The Tablet
Missing consensus on second marriages
Loading ...
Get Instant Access
Subscribe to The Tablet for just £7.99
Subscribe today to take advantage of our introductory offers and enjoy 30 days' access for just £7.99
What do you think?
You can post as a subscriber user...
User Comments (5)
Those who are divorced and remarried without annulment and also same sex couples are living in a continuous state of serious sin. How can the CC, through gradualism, accompany them on a journey of spiritual renewal when their lifestyles are inconsistent with Catholic Doctrine?
The focus on divorce and remarried rather misses the 'elephant(s) in the room'. The large Catholic family is now a rarity - because the majority of Catholics practise contraception and feel no compunction in receiving the Eucharist. The same can be said about co-habiting couples. There is the 'ideal' Church the Magisterium and episcopate like to think Catholics conform to; then there is the laity who live a different style of Catholicism. I can only think that Christ rejoices that they want to be united with him in the Eucharist.
I wonder what the current annulment process requires- and if it could become less onerous. My sister was married to a man in Opus Dei who was verbally and sexually abusive, and she allowed him to claim she was mentally ill at the time of marriage and therefore unable to enter into the sacrament because she was desperate to get away from him. But a woman in my parish who is devout and who works for the diocese was unwilling to enter into the process because, as she said, "I was not going to say horrible things about my child's father." Could there be something in the annulment requirements - as well as the cost of course-which also keeps folks from doing it?
The answer is simple: Let people approach the sacrament, based on the dictates of their conscience.
Let pontiffs pontificate and hierarchs hierarchise. Let them theorise and state principles in the name of whomsoever they choose. But any attempt to usurp the relationship between God and God's divorced children is to be condemned.
The teaching that one must be in a state of grace, without serious sin, when receiving Comunion seems based on St. Paul's prescription in 1 Corinthians about "eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner".
But in the context, the "unworthy manner" seems to be not recognizing the community aspect of theEucharist. "not discerning the body" is not dicerning the Mystical body.
The Church requirement of being in a state of grace before Communion is just that – a church requirement to emphasisze the Sacredness of Communion.
It is not unlike our former requirement of fasting from midnight before receiving. That got cut down to three hours. Then to just one.
All these are good regulations to help us respect the holiness of Communion.
But they are just Church rules which can be changed. Jesus never laid down any expectations of His own about requirements.