The greatest blessing from the Synod on the Family, and the only real way forward, would be if an impossible burden were to be lifted from the sacrament of marriage. “[The] nuptial relation between husband and wife 'embodies' [my emphasis] in sacramental form the bond between Christ and his Church-Bride. How, then, in the lifetime of a still recognised spouse can a household with a second (or third, etc.) partner present itself, in a 'domestic church' manner, at the Table of the Lord?” (Aidan Nichols, The Tablet, 28 March) is the view from the ivory tower of celibate male clergy. Marriage does not “embody” the bond between Christ and his Church. People are human. They can and do aim for such perfection but rarely, if ever, achieve it.
Those who have never experienced marriage and condemn divorce so stridently seem to believe that people have not taken their marriage vows seriously and walk away from them on a whim. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can make your marriage vows with the greatest of faith, hope and love, you can put everything you've got, everything “humanly” possible, into your marriage but, being human, sometimes marriages fail despite people doing their best. A marriage that dies, as Christ's bond with his Church never will, is a cause for great heartache, regret and sense of failure. Is this not repentance? Why can the Church not support those with the courage to undertake a second marriage? Why are a failed marriage and a subsequent remarriage treated as unforgivable sins? God forgives. A Church that does not embody God's forgiveness and understanding of human frailty does not embody God.
Margaret Callinan, Balwyn, Victoria, Australia
Fr Aidan Nichols, in his consideration of the pastoral problem of admission to communion of a divorced and remarried Catholic (Letters, 28th March), asks the question ‘How...in the lifetime of a still-recognised spouse can a household with a second ... partner present itself in a “domestic Church” manner at the table of the Lord?’ By the same token one needs to ask, "How can the Bishops of England and Wales refuse access to the table of the Lord of a first-time married pair of spouses presenting themselves in a domestic Church manner when both partners are recognised as validly baptised and married but one of whom happens to be a practising Christian of another denomination?"
The answers to these questions may be found in the development of a theology focusing on the pastoral care of those suffering from the long term consequences of human weakness, failure and sin. It would need to consider how the justice and mercy of Christ can be applied in the context of the historic breakdowns (with their dire and continuing consequences – some centuries long others long in the life of an individual) of, for example, Church unity on the one hand and marital unity on the other. But of course there are other areas of human conduct as, or even more, significant: the waging of war, misappropriation of public wealth, violation of the environment, economic exploitation of the less powerful etc. Why is it only those who fail to remain unmarried after a divorce or those brought up in the faithful and loving service of Christ in the excommunicated denomination who need to be marked out for painful exclusion from Christ’s table? And is that the sort of pastoral response Christ requires, and frail but striving humanity needs?
M L Leach, Bedford
Loading ...
