German Priests and Deacons Announce Their Admission of the Remarried to the Sacraments

The Badische Zeitung reports that some 150 clergymen of the archdiocese of Freiburg have signed a statement calling for the admission of the divorced and remarried to the sacraments. They state that they have already implemented this policy in their pastoral ministry.

Pray Tell brings their statement in translation:

The Divorced and Remarried in Our Church

With the topic “The Divorced and Remarried” we take up from the topics of the “Memorandum of the Theologians” a particularly burning concern that cannot be delayed any longer.

We thus unite ourselves with initiatives, in some cases from decades ago, which have called this a pastorally urgent problem. For example:

The Wurzburg Synod, 1975;
The bishops of the Oberrhein province, 1993;
The Katholische Frauengemeinschaft Deutschlands (“Association of Catholic Women of German”) after the 2011 papal visit;
Also the book by Eberhard Schockenhoff, Chancen zur Versöhnung? (“Opportunities for Reconciliation?”).

In all these documents and publications, multiple reasons are given for why people who have entered into a new relationship after their divorce should be treated with great trust and with respect for their new relationship, and why they should not be excluded from reception of the sacraments.

Tell it like it is!

With our signature we bring to expression that we let ourselves be guided by mercy in our pastoral action with the divorced and remarried (salus animarum suprema lex – the salvation of souls is the highest law). We are fully aware that we thereby are often acting against the prescripts of canon law currently in force in the Roman Catholic Church.

But we thereby take into account the decision in conscience of the individuals concerned and their resulting real life situation. In our communities, the divorced and remarried go to Communion and receive the Sacrament of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick with our approval. They are active as colleagues on parish councils, in catechetical formation, and in other services.

Until now we have lived with this balancing act in the hope that there would soon be a decision which would give these people, officially and without discrimination, a place in our Church in accord with the Gospel.

We think new regulations are urgently necessary for the sake of people and our Church. We no longer wish to maintain and endure this balancing act.

Priests and Deacons of the Archdiocese of Freiburg
(156 clergymen as of June 6, 2012)

H/T The Tablet

Posted

June 6, 2012

Church Reform

Editor

Tags:

Freiburg, Memorandum der Theologen

Comments

54 responses to “German Priests and Deacons Announce Their Admission of the Remarried to the Sacraments”

Matthew Hazell

June 6, 2012

In our communities, the divorced and remarried go to Communion and receive the Sacrament of Penance and the Anointing of the Sick with our approval.

I suppose these days, someone’s approval is all I need to feel morally validated in my choices. Even if those choices are contrary to the law, that’s okay, because I’ve been approved of by someone who says they know what they’re talking about, and that makes me feel better about it.

I also suppose that, these days, if I give approval to someone’s breaking of the law, that makes me feel tolerant and merciful. After all, it would be mean of me to make them feel bad about what they have done. Better for me to be nice and affirming, and thus feel better about myself.

———-

Now, I appreciate that this is a complex area, and divorce is indeed a pastoral problem, but is encouraging people to disobey or ignore the Scriptures and the Church really in keeping with the principle salus animarum suprema lex? Is it really impossible in “real life” to live out the expectations of God when it comes to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony? (Or any other sacrament?)

Reply
1. Brigid Rauch
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  My understanding is that the divorced and re-married are to be denied Communion because they are living in a state of mortal sin, because to offer them Communion would cause scandal, in order to punish them for disobedience, in order to keep others in line or some combination of all of these.
  Mortal sin? Not as far as I know!
  Scandal? Not so much these days.
  Is it “impossible in “real life” to live out the expectations of God when it comes to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony”? No, but not everyone’s life turns out the way they expected it to!
  When it comes to divorce and remarriage, I think the guiding injunction should be Matthew 7:1-5!
  
  Reply
  1. Matthew Hazell
    
    June 6, 2012
    
    Then how do you reconcile the fact that the same Person said the words found in Matthew 7:1-5 and 19:9? Are you advocating playing Our Lord’s words off against themselves, or ignoring one saying and not the other? (Mt. 7:1-5 seems to be one of the more misused portions of Scripture – it can’t possibly mean what many think it to, given, e.g., Jesus’ instructions to the apostles in 10:5-15, or many of Paul’s words in his letters!)
    
    By the way, in terms of denial of Holy Communion as punishment for disobedience, I think you have it wrong. That may be how some people feel about it, but that doesn’t make it true!
    
    EDIT: Oh, and my life hasn’t quite turned out how I expected it to many years ago when I was younger and less foolish than I am now. 🙂 But my expectations back then and the slightly different reality I inhabit now don’t affect my vows, commitments and responsibilities with regard to my own marriage now, nor will they in the future.
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 6, 2012
    
    Mortal sin? Not as far as I know!
    
    Ignorance is bliss, but only when ’tis folly to be wise.
    
    I think what is material for the mortal sin is “living together as husband and wife” (i.e. sexual relations) with a person who is not your spouse. There are married couples who abstain from sexual relations during the process of seeking a decree of nullity.
    
    Scandal? Not so much these days.
    
    Ah, morality based on the lived experience! We can get away with so much if we just grow numb to the scandal of it. Chesterton quipped that “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” Nowadays, though, it seems whatever has been excused for long enough ceases to be an evil.
    
    When it comes to divorce and remarriage, I think the guiding injunction should be Matthew 7:1-5!
    
    Why limit it to divorce and remarriage? That could be the policy for any sin.
Jeffrey Pinyan

June 6, 2012

In all seriousness, I am pleased to see that they recognize the importance that sacraments have for the salvation of souls.

Reply
Jonathan F. Sullivan

June 6, 2012

I’m wondering what the goal of this kind of statement/action is. Are these clerics hoping to change the Church’s teaching on divorce itself? Or simply the regulations around denying the divorced and remarried Holy Communion?

Put another way, would they consider the divorced and remarried to be engaging in ongoing sin, yet admit them to Holy Communion? Or do they consider these persons not engaging in sin at all? The statement isn’t entirely clear.

Reply
1. Brigid Rauch
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  Who among us is not engaging in ongoing sin?
  
  From the catechism:
  
  For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
  
  I think what many lay Catholics and these priests are saying is that to remarry after divorce is not a grave sin, and may not be a sin at all!
  
  Reply
  1. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 6, 2012
    
    I think the faith of the Church is that breaking a legitimate marriage vow is in fact a sin; I would expect a sin opposed to a sacrament constitutes “grave matter”. But I’m not a theologian.
  2. Shane Maher
    
    June 6, 2012
    
    Brigid “I think what many lay Catholics and these priests are saying is that to remarry after divorce is not a grave sin, and may not be a sin at all!”
    
    It seems these same lay Catholics and priests you mention must have a problem with Vatican II then. Think of GS #48 not to mention LG #25.
Brigid Rauch

June 6, 2012

Ah, morality based on the lived experience! We can get away with so much if we just grow numb to the scandal of it.

The scandal has gone away as we have learned that life is messy. Almost no one marries with the intent to divorce should things not work out. ( although I know of at least one person who did so!) But we see people leave miserable marriages and make a new life for themselves with other people. It’s not the ideal, but it takes an awful lot of humility to admit that something is not working and to take the public steps to set things right.

Reply
1. Jeffrey Pinyan
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  Setting an abusive / unloving / dishonest marriage right does not necessarily mean marrying someone else.
  
  I highly doubt that “almost no one marries with the intent to divorce should things not work out”. I would be more willing to believe that most people marry with the intent that things will work out, and that many marry with relief in knowing divorce is an option.
  
  Reply
  1. Jonathan Sorensen
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    As I prepare couples, I try not to think about it. Lord knows they intend for life to continue together, but while perhaps not having the thought of divorce in their head, the culture surely presents it to them as a solution to difficulty.
    
    But then these are couples who marry in the Church. Some marry civilly just so to allow the option of divorce. Then, after many years and many children together, they might consider having it validated in the Church.
    
    At the same time, my work in the tribunal has shown that people are willing to put up with a lot (understatement!) for the sake of an ideal: love, marriage, faith, etc.
Brigid Rauch

June 6, 2012

Why limit it to divorce and remarriage? That could be the policy for any sin.

Are you advocating playing Our Lord’s words off against themselves, or ignoring one saying and not the other?

I think for the community to make a blanket judgment that all who divorce and remarry are living in mortal sin is an excellent example of spotting the splinter in another’s eye. Who understands what was going on between two people any better than they themselves?

As for playing the Lord’s words against each other, I think it is a case of taking a clear injunction much in keeping with other incidents in the Gospel and balancing it against another injunction whose meaning appears plain but may in fact be more nuanced than has been appreciated at times.

Go and sin no more? What if it is a sin to remain in an unloving marriage, and to sin no more is to establish a loving marriage, a sign of the God of Second Chances?

Reply
1. Jeffrey Pinyan
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  Your “what if”s (at least the latter) require a case to be made for them.
  
  Reply
Todd Flowerday

June 6, 2012

The no-Communion proponents will need to deal with the strong pelagian drift in their position. Are the sacraments a reward for good behavior?

The Church teaches that sacraments impart grace. Do we really believe that God is limited in imparting grace to those who measure up to even minimal requirements of virtue? Let’s keep in mind that the goal, in this life, of perfect behavior is ever elusive. A remarried couple carefully discerning their life situation, their needs of grace, the recognition of marital status: this is best left to the consultation of their pastor, their spiritual director, and the witness and support of their community. Not canon law.

Reply
1. Kim Rodgers
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  Brave Todd! You said it best.
  
  Reply
2. Matthew Hazell
  
  June 7, 2012
  
  A remarried couple carefully discerning their life situation, their needs of grace, the recognition of marital status: this is best left to the consultation of their pastor, their spiritual director, and the witness and support of their community. Not canon law.
  
  Yet eliminating an objective framework and substituting in its place subjective feelings is not the answer. How is discernment of one’s own behaviour (or that of others) even possible without reference to some objective standard?
  
  Reply
  1. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    I blogged in a bit more detail on my site about this matter last week. It’s not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We’re talking about utilizing discernment, not eliminating an entire system.
    
    Creating caricatures and exaggerating the views of those who are suggesting the system isn’t working–this is not helpful.
  2. Richard Malcolm
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Hello Todd,
    
    “Do we really believe that God is limited in imparting grace to those who measure up to even minimal requirements of virtue?”
    
    Of course not.
    
    But there are many other channels for grace besides the Eucharist.
    
    I agree with you about the danger of a Pelagian cast of mind with this problem. It should not be viewed that way. But St. Paul’s injunction in I Corinthians seems to go to what it really means to receive the Lord. It is not that sins can’t be forgiven. But we do have to recognize them as sins, and attempt not to continue them.
    
    The nub of the question really is this: Do we really believe that it is a grave sin to remarry another, with all that entails, while still sacramentally married to another? If it is just in some cases, how do we discern that? We need a clear standard.
    
    “We’re talking about utilizing discernment, not eliminating an entire system.”
    
    Well, I would hope not. But you’re the one talking about dispensing with canon law to address remarriage issues. How is that not eliminating a system?
  3. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    “But there are many other channels for grace besides the Eucharist.”
    
    True. But we embrace the Eucharist as the pinnacle of Earthly experience of grace. Who needs the best sign of grace more, a sinner or a saint?
    
    “Do we really believe that it is a grave sin to remarry another, with all that entails, while still sacramentally married to another?:
    
    I’m not sure it always is. Grave sin requires a particular intention to separate oneself from God. Not sure every divorced person has this intention.
    
    As for my supposed dismissal of canon law, I’m suggesting that higher standards than canon law may and perhaps should be utilized in well-discerned, individual circumstances.
    
    Jesus preached not only against killing, but harboring hate against another person. Have we made a mockery not only of “Thou shalt not kill” but also a highly restrictive teaching against even hate in bending our consciences to be able to tolerate, or even advocate for just war?
    
    I think a believer should be urged to very high standards. Second marriages are a problem, but calling all of them adulterous is the same as calling every soldier a murderer. Canon law provides a framework, as some have suggested here, so we don’t have to agonize over every tough decision. I think the witnesses of so-called scandal should also be held to high standards. We should wrestle with this issue much more than we do. There should be a lot more grief, pain, and loss felt by the absence of some of our brothers and sisters from the Eucharistic table.
    
    I openly wonder about the sufficiency of the attitudes shown by some on this site. Not only is there a danger of pelagianism by a narrow interpretation of sacramental participation, but there’s a very real threat that canon law becomes a golden calf of idolatry. Canon law exists to sanctify people, not for its own sake as a body of cultural legislation.
  4. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Grave sin requires a particular intention to separate oneself from God.
    
    Is that so? “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)
    
    So if I willfully and knowingly murder a man in cold blood, but without the intention to separate myself from God (in doing so), it’s not a mortal/grave sin?
  5. Jim McKay
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    That is correct. If you do not know that this will separate you from God, then you lack full knowledge; if you know, but do not intend that result, you lack delibearte intent.
  6. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    if you know, but do not intend that result, you lack deliberate intent.
    
    Could you give a bit more detail on this? It sounds like a bit of a loophole.
3. Samuel J. Howard
  
  June 7, 2012
  
  The Church teaches that sacraments impart grace. Do we really believe that God is limited in imparting grace to those who measure up to even minimal requirements of virtue?
  
  No. We don’t believe that. The grace of repentance that leads to people meeting minimal requirements of virtue neccesary to receive the sacraments worthily is obviously given to those who don’t meet minimal requirements of virtue. It’s a strangely limited view of the power of God that insists on the broader application of the sacraments as if He doesn’t provide grace in other ways.
  
  Let’s keep in mind that the goal, in this life, of perfect behavior is ever elusive.
  
  Perfect behaviour may be elusive (I’m inclined to think that’s somewhat overstating things), but we’re not talking about perfect behaviour, we’re talking about grave public sins. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is not elusive.
  
  A remarried couple carefully discerning their life situation, their needs of grace, the recognition of marital status: this is best left to the consultation of their pastor, their spiritual director, and the witness and support of their community. Not canon law.
  
  You mentioned the Orthodox in another comment. Their application of economia in cases of divorce is often (for instance in ROCOR) similar to the Roman Catholic annulment process in administrative procedure, though not in theology. They’re not at all excluding canon law.
  
  And while they allow divorce in ways Catholics don’t, in other ways they’re much more stringent about requirements for Communion.
  
  Reply
  1. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Your points on grace are worth further discussion.
    
    “(W)e’re talking about grave public sins. ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ is not elusive.”
    
    I think we have to sort out reality. Grave sin is determined not only by viewers, but also by the person committing the act. A Protestant married thirty years before and divorced. Remarries and has a stable fifty-year marriage, including three children who were baptized in the Catholic Church. Lots of questions as to why the parents never became Catholic. I never had an answer to it.
    
    Did Jesus speak as a lawgiver writing particular law? Was he engaging in rabbinical exaggeration in a particular context? Divorce and broken marriages are not matters to be trifled with, to be sure. But neither is “holding hatred in one’s heart.” Let alone warmongering.
    
    The difference in the institutional approaches to sex and violence is indeed disheartening. Or don’t I count because I’m a liberal peacemaker and I’m not offended by long-lasting second marriages that demonstrate that people who failed with their first spouse seem to have managed a good degree of metanoia with the second.
    
    Thanks for the discussion. Not such a meaniehead after all, am I?
Fr. John Naugle

June 6, 2012

St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great would have very, very harsh words for these wicked and unfaithful “shepherds.”

Reply
crystal watson

June 6, 2012

First, I agree with Todd – at the last supper, even Judas ate the bread and drank the wine. Jesus didn’t require perfection from those he told to eat and drink.

Second, are we really believing that there’s a sunstantial moral difference between all divorced people who get annulments and those who don’t? Either the marriage died for an acceptable reason or it didn’t, but the fact that someone didn’t want to go through the annulment process and yet still remarries doesn’t automatically mean they are “sinners” (unless, of course, the sin is that they didn’t follow church procedure).

Reply
1. Fr. Steve Sanchez
  
  June 6, 2012
  
  Crystal,
  
  Jesus didn’t require perfection, but he does require repentance and belief in the gospel. How many forget that repentance is a change of mind and heart away from sin. Ongoing adultery is manifestly against this precept. This is the first requirement of the Gospel and the foundation of being forgiven and cleansed by Christ. Secondly, Jesus washed the disciples feet so that they might be properly clean for the sacrificial meal. It would be unseemly were they not washed by Christ before they sat at his table. The same is true for us. We must be cleansed and forgiven by Jesus before we sit at table. How rude it would be to the host to stamped in and eat his food without proper respect and cleanliness. And last of all, “the sin” is not that they didn’t follow church law but divine law. “What God has joined together let no man separate.” We also can’t forget that St. Paul taught that we must receive the Lord in a worthy manner. If we don’t, we will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eat and drink judgment upon ourselves. I for one am thankful that the Church is taking this seriously today. At the same time it reaches out to help couples that are in a difficult situation and invites them to participate in every other way that they can in the life of the church.
  
  Reply
  1. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    “Ongoing adultery is manifestly against this precept.”
    
    Seems to be a sheltered and uninformed assessment of a legal reality. One marriage has ended. Sometimes for decades. Sometimes the second marriage accompanies the repentance, conversion, and change of heart. And at worst, second marriages are legal realities undertaken once first marriages are ended. There is no adultery. The sacramental nature of marriage, however: this is another matter.
    
    The Orthodox have wholly valid sacraments, and yet they don’t have these challenges. Are you suggesting that Orthodox Christianity isn’t taking the situation of divorce and the sacraments seriously?
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Then what is Christ’s admonition against divorce and adultery about? What does it actually apply to?
  3. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Jeffrey, it applies to believers today as surely as it did two millennia ago. But we have more than the Scriptural words of Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the Church. We have discernment.
    
    Sadly, we have a situation where literal fundamentalism is applied to sexual offenses, but not matters of violence. Why are so-called adulterers and so-called murderers treated so differently?
  4. Samuel J. Howard
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Sadly, we have a situation where literal fundamentalism is applied to sexual offenses, but not matters of violence. Why are so-called adulterers and so-called murderers treated so differently?
    
    We’ve had this discussion in previous threads. Those who are murderers who are still killing people are forbidden from receiving communion, just like those who are still comitting adultery. They’re treated the same.
  5. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Not quite. People make war, call it just (whether it is or not) and still go to Communion. In the old days, even those who fought in wars with the best intentions we judged to need time to return to the community.
    
    John Cassian suggested that the sacraments were needed to fortify people involved in some types of sin, even sexual sin, for the purpose of helping them in the reform of their lives. That’s why I ask: are there situations where the sacraments are part of the remedy instead of being a badge for good behavior?
  6. Jeffrey Pinyan
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    That’s why I ask: are there situations where the sacraments are part of the remedy instead of being a badge for good behavior?
    
    When you say “the sacraments” in the plural, do you mean, for example, Reconciliation and Holy Communion? Is the sacrament of Reconciliation considered seriously by people in this particular situation? Not just as a hoop to have to jump through (“sign here, here, go to confession, and initial here”) but as an actual recourse and remedy?
  7. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Jeffrey, I think it is in some cases. But not in all, probably most. Reconciliation deserves a serious look, rather than a piecemeal dismissal of it, either form I by the laity or form III by Rome.
    
    The Eucharist is central to the identity of Roman Catholics. We make a big deal of it. And well we should. There are instances from the witness of the saints and of our sister Churches that might suggest another way. That way, or ways, are worth exploring in a reasoned, sensible, and open dialogue, one in which the institution doesn’t shy away from the power to loose and bind in situations where its interpretation may have been flawed or incomplete.
  8. Karl Liam Saur
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Todd,
    
    Consider also the residue of centuries of sacramental minimalism regarding the participation of the faithful in the pews; there is still a strong, atavistic, pull towards taking comfort from the idea that it is most important that Things Are Done Right. We have not fully absorbed the sacramental revolution of Pius X (like most things like this, I believe that the human author of that revolution did not fully grasp its import at the time).
2. Jimmy Mac
  
  June 14, 2012
  
  Ah, yes …. annulment.
  
  The Catholic Church effectively gives tacit approval to divorce with what has become the charade of annulment. In their 2002 book, “Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments”, Joseph Martos and Pierre Hegy state:
  
  “Because the grounds for annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as ‘virtual divorces.’ After all, the same grounds for divorce in a civil court have ‘become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court.’ (Page 23) To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid – that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.”
  
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2586453/posts
  
  In other words it is the Catholic game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
  
  But I guess “nudge-nudge, wink-wink” Catholicism is more acceptable than the out and out honesty of divorce.
  
  Reply
claire bangasser

June 7, 2012

Oh, Godde… Thou shall not judge thy neighbors or use the name of Jesus Christ to condemn anyone.

Reply
Fr. John Naugle

June 7, 2012

Todd Flowerday :

Jeffrey, it applies to believers today as surely as it did two millennia ago. But we have more than the Scriptural words of Jesus. We have the Holy Spirit. We have the Church. We have discernment.
Sadly, we have a situation where literal fundamentalism is applied to sexual offenses, but not matters of violence. Why are so-called adulterers and so-called murderers treated so differently?

And the Holy Spirit has consistently affirmed the words of Christ through the Magisterium.

Even separate from the adultery argument, there is the fact that a Catholic *cannot* marry validly in a civil ceremony. These men and women who have chosen that path are in *fake* marriages which God Himself does not recognize as marriages (binding and loosing remember…). This is a grave problem: pretending to be married when He very clearly says you are not. There is never, ever reason to civilly marry outside the Church.

If a couple cannot even agree with the Church about whether or not they are actually married, they very clearly are NOT in Communion with her.

Reply
1. Todd Flowerday
  
  June 7, 2012
  
  Marriage, as a human institution, predates the Church, and today, in part, exists outside of it. This is a human reality. There are aspects that might disappoint you or me. But you and I do not walk in these people’s shoes. And you and I have yet to convert the entire world to Christ and to a Christian orthopraxis.
  
  I note the almost-hysterical transigence without considering that the Church has not always “governed” the sacrament of marriage in this way. Nobody has chosen to comment on my citation of the Orthodox approach. Is that not orthodox enough? Or are you scrambling to fact-check me because I have the audacity to raise questions for which you have no answers?
  
  This is certainly a grave problem. That’s my point. That’s what these priests and deacons are saying. Some believers need to stop with singing “La la la,” remove their fingers from their ears, and address the reality.
  
  Clergy with limited experience with the sacraments do not seem to help matters. The goal to be sought is sanctification for all, even sinners, not a perfectionism that smells of narcissism, idolatry, and a bit of pelagianism.
  
  “We had the right answer all along.” That’s not going to cut it.
  
  Reply
  1. Samuel J. Howard
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    Or are you scrambling to fact-check me because I have the audacity to raise questions for which you have no answers?
    
    Personally, I’m tending to not respond because your comments in these threads are so mean to the people who disagree with you: “temple police”, narcisissits, “singing ‘La la la,’”, etc.
  2. Todd Flowerday
    
    June 7, 2012
    
    I’m critical of positions, not of people. Every conservative Catholic is an honored daughter or son of the Father and a priceless member of the Body. I recognize these people as sisters and brothers in Roman Catholicism. I embrace them as believers like my family, friends, parishioners.
    
    Sometimes pulling back from a vigorous discussion is one of closeness to the confrontation. For example, it is safe to wail on Maureen Dowd, because she won’t likely bother to visit a conservative Catholic website that is critical of her.
    
    I think many Catholics pull back from tough talk when they actually have to engage with someone who disagrees with them. It is less safe to engage me, especially if a person identifies so closely to their viewpoint that they become their views. And any criticism or friendly poke at their views is a criticism of their very selves.
    
    Personally, I don’t appreciate my suggestions being tagged as wanting to throw open the doors and let everybody in. My suggestion is that this situation with divorced and remarried Catholics is serious enough to merit a very serious discussion.
    
    If someone thinks there are ample opportunities for grace out there outside the sacramental system, I’m all ears. Tell me about it.
    
    If you think I need to play more nicely, I’m willing to give it a go as a mutual effort.
Bill deHaas

June 7, 2012

Some historical perspective on these issues:

1972 – Ratzinger, theologian

1972: Ratzinger’s article On the Question of the Indissolubility of Marriage, in which he clearly states the Church’s firm conviction of the indissolubility of valid sacramental marriage, but suggests a certain toleration of some second, non-sacramental marriages, that would allow the partners to receive Holy Communion, is appropriate and in keeping with the Church’s tradition.

November 22, 1981: Familiaris Consortio re-affirms the Church’s practice of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Eucharistic Communion.

Key event – July 10, 1993: three bishops in Germany (Walter Kasper, Karl Lehmann, Oskar Saier) issue a pastoral letter to those involved in pastoral activities in their diocese, in which they stated that a pastoral dialogue was needed to determine whether the “generally valid” prohibition against the remarried receiving the Eucharist “applies also in a given situation,” and that there ought to be “room for pastoral flexibility in complex, individual cases.” Citing Familiaris Consortio, they note the Church’s teaching that “divorced and remarried people generally cannot be admitted to the eucharistic feast as they find themselves in life situations that are in objective contradiction to the essence of Christian marriage,” but remark that canon law can “set up only a valid general order; it cannot regulate all of the often very complex individual cases.” (“Pastoral Ministry: The Divorced and Remarried,” Origins 23 (March 10, 1994), pp. 670-673

The German bishops respond to the CDF’s letter with a message to the people of their dioceses in which they state that “we do not find ourselves in any doctrinal disagreement,” with the position laid down by the CDF, but “the difference has to do with the question of pastoral practice in individual cases,” and that there does “exist room, beneath the threshold of the binding teaching, for pastoral flexibility in complex individual cases that is to be used responsibly.”

1998: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger writes the introduction to “On the Pastoral Care of the Divorced and Remarried”, published by the Libreria in the dicastery’s series

Since 1998 – it has been a slammed door in terms of discussion. The German cardinals, Lehmann and Kaspar, have proposed a three tier process in which they posit that pastoral decisions do not, in and of themselve, negate the indisolubility of marriage.

So, you can see that, like other pressing issues, frustration has been growing for 14 years especially when discussion is suppressed by appealing to some type of “authority”.

Reply
1. Todd Flowerday
  
  June 7, 2012
  
  Bill’s perspective helps here.
  
  The “battle lines,” by the Vatican’s own insistence is not between extremes. It is not between those who defend the sacramental system and those who want to overturn everything. It is between defenders of the institution and those who want to explore the spiritual practice of discernment in “complex” cases.
  
  To recap: everyone involved is in agreement that the sacraments are vital. Everyone agrees marriage as practiced gives rise to crisis. Everyone wants believers to benefit from God’s grace. What is the real point of contention?
  
  Reply
2. Claire Mathieu
  
  June 11, 2012
  
  In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, people who are divorced are allowed to marry again (but only once) after undergoing a period of penance and reflection. They still have access to all the sacraments after remarriage. The Ukrainian Catholic church is in full communion with the Roman Catholic church. Thus in practice there is a way to accept or at least tolerate remarriage and yet be in complete unity with Rome on the essentials of the faith.
  
  To expand on Bill’s note and explain in more detail how that it possible:
  1972 – Ratzinger: Even the eastern Churches’ very extensive practice of divorce retains the structure of the position of Origen-Basil. That is to say, also for them there can be no valid sacramental marriage while the first spouses are alive; the second marriage does not become a properly ecclesial marriage. It remains a tolerated marriage, and the reception of the sacraments is permitted by way of tolerance (today termed economy).
  
  Reply
3. Samuel J. Howard
  
  June 12, 2012
  
  In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, people who are divorced are allowed to marry again (but only once) after undergoing a period of penance and reflection.
  
  I’m pretty certain that this is allowed in the Ukranian Orthodox Church, but not in the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. Do you have a citation? It doesn’t match up with this article about anullments on the web site of the Ukranian Eparchy of Parma.
  
  Reply
  1. Claire Mathieu
    
    June 12, 2012
    
    No, unfortunately. My source is a friend who is Ukrainian Greek Catholic. But she could be confused since it didn’t apply to her. So, she (and therefore I) could be wrong. Sorry!
crystal watson

June 7, 2012

Strange how in the previous thread about eucharistic adoration, what Jesus said – “take this and eat it” rather than “take this and look at it” – wasn’t considered normative. Someone told me that we don’t just do waht Jesus said, we’re Catholics.

But when Jesus makes a comment about the way marriage was back then – that hard hearted men were too easily dumping their wives, women who would then have few other options in that society – it gets applied to marriages forever and to all (except for church approved annulments).

Reply
1. Jeffrey Pinyan
  
  June 7, 2012
  
  “Take and eat” is normative. But we go further (one would argue, along the same trajectory) in adoring that which we take/receive and eat. We are not contradicting Jesus, we are indeed taking Him at His word, since He said “this is my body”.
  
  Reply
Jack Feehily

June 7, 2012

I’ve been a pastor for nearly forty years. I have assisted many individuals and couples through the annulment process which helped them to realize their desire to grow closer to God sacramentally. I have also encountered an even large number of individuals and couples for whom the annulment process simply wasn’t possible. For some there simply aren’t any witnesses who actually had sufficient knowledge to respond to a questionnaire. For others it involves a far too painful opening up of scarred wounds. There are lots of real life circumstances which complicate the process of reconciliation when looked upon strictly through the lens of canon law. Since there was no canon law for many centuries and since marriage was only officially considered one of the seven sacraments until the second millenium, there has to be another way to act for the good of souls. These are people who come, in the first place, because they are seeking God and wanting to be active members of the church. They are at Mass every weekend. They are practically involved in the week to week life of the parish. In short, they are good people who are trying to overcome personal failures, including those which led to failed marriages. Lots of them didn’t have enough faith at the time of those marriages to intend to do what the church believes. They were only “joined by God” in terms of there having been some kind of ceremony. They found out soon enough how foolish they were and the marriage failed. Has anyone every suggested that failing at marriage and choosing to remarry is the unforgivable sin? If it is not, then it is surely an absolvable sin. Did Christ not say “whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”? I have to ask what would the Lord have me do for this person or these persons? Shall I send them away empty, or offer them a snake when they are seeking nourishment? Do I say something like my hands are tied, I wish you well…. Come to Mass, but abstain from the Sacrament?

Reply
Bill deHaas

June 7, 2012

Thanks, Jack, a breath of fresh air and real pastoral love as you walked along with these folks.

They were lucky to have you.

Reply
Brigid Rauch

June 8, 2012

It was stated above that Marriage became accepted as a sacrement at the sawn of the second millenium. This begs the questions, what was the appreciation of Matthew 9:19 for the first millenium, and how was it accorded its current importance?

Reply
Bill deHaas

June 8, 2012

Jack and Brigid – thought you might enjoy a couple of presentations today at the CTSA conference that apply to this topic:

http://ncronline.org/news/african-theologian-questions-church%E2%80%99s-exclusion-women

Money quotes that I have transposed to this issue:

– ““As a church, so long as we surreptitiously but tenaciously rehearse the politics of discrimination and exclusion, we stand before God, as Cain was, befuddled by a question that we simply cannot wish away at the wave of a magisterial wand,” said Orobator. “And the question is: ‘Church, where is your (divorced/remarried)sister/brother? Church where is your mother?’”

– or: “On the evidence of current events, this ‘socially constituted,’ hierarchically regimented, dogmatically policed, and clerically asphyxiated community called church increasingly signifies hurt and pain for some people of God on account of their vulnerability, silence and intimidation for others on account of their honest engagement in the venerable task of fides quarens intellectum, and exclusion and marginalization for many, very many, on account of their gender, race, (marriage status) or social location.”

– or: “paradigm shift resembling an eccesial Copernican revolution.”

“The multi-dimensional, multi-cultural, and multi-ethnic constitution of the community called church invites us to a feast of diversity and celebration of plurality, spread out on the table of mutuality, appreciation, and gratitude for each human being as Imago Dei,” Orobator ended. (including divorced and remarried)

From another speaker – “Commenting on the nature of the sacraments as things which “effect reconciliation” between God and God’s people”

Reply
Brigid Rauch

June 9, 2012

Could you give a bit more detail on this? It sounds like a bit of a loophole.

We should be trying to be ever closer to God and in line with a perfect Creation. Looking for looholes turns what should be a loving relationship into a game; take two steps forward, skip a turn, pay the bank $200. A proper sacramental marriage models the first concept, regardless of the legalities. A marriage in which the couple is constantly counting points models the second concept. It may be sacramental, but it is a very dry, limited thing instead of the overflowing gift it could be!

Reply