An olive branch to divorced-and-remarried Catholics?
Speaking of receiving communion, or not, an item in the current edition of The Tablet hints at a possible opening for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion–even though many do, obviously, their ban from the altar under church law remains one of the sorest pastoral points in the US church. It is also a sore point in Austria, a once uber-Catholic country, whose flock has grown increasingly disillusioned with its leadership.
Now one of those leaders, Cardinal Christophe Schonborn of Vienna, a close ally of Pope Benedict XVI, seems to have suggested that there may be a way to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to remain in the church’s good graces, or return there. According to the article, Schönborn “has said it is essential to ‘broaden the perspective’ of the Church’s treatment of remarried divorcees, hinting that he could see circumstances under which they should be allowed to receive Communion, such as if they acknowledged their guilt and attempted to reconcile with family members.”
Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, where one in two marriages ends in divorce, made his comments in an interview with the Austrian daily Die Presse last weekend. He suggested wronged partners deserved different treatment from those who have been unfaithful. “And then there is the question of the abandoned partners who often have a far more difficult time than those who have already found new partners,” he said. He said he would like to see attention distributed more evenly and the problems of “those who have no one to stand up for them in public” included.
Cardinal Schönborn’s own parents separated when he was young. “True compassion lies first of all in discussing what is to blame and not promising a quick cure by means of a sacramental sticking plaster.” He said that only if and when each case had been honestly appraised, which involved a period of grieving, remorse and perhaps also reconciliation, was it possible to assess, at a diocesan level, whether it made sense to allow people to receive the sacraments again.
We have a lot of divorce and remarried Catholics. By annulment, that is. But they have acknowledged no guilt.
In the centuries during which the marriage of Christians was left to the state (and I believe that was during most of the history of the Church), how was the issue of divorce and remarriage handled?
I will do the honors of raising the obvious objection: marriages may not be dissolved. How can that be squared with what the Cardinal is suggesting?
When you make the rules you can break the rules.
Annulment isn’t called Catholic d-i-v-o-r-c-e for nothing! Just ask St. Tammy Wynette.
To address Jim’s question—”marriages may not be dissolved”—hate to say it, but much time is spent in Diocesan Tribunals doing just that—dissolving marriages—-proving that they were not “valid” at the time that they occured for one reason or another.
I believe that all the priests trained in Canon Law and working in this area—are wasting their time. Married couples should be working in Marriage Tribunals—because only they really know
what marriage is about in the flesh and blood experience. Priests by their vow of celibacy, do not really understand marriage. They only understand the “laws” around marriage.
Look to the East.
We consider Orthodox sacraments wholly valid, yet their approach to divorce and remarriage seems theologically and pastorally sensible. Brokem marriages are recognized. A subsequent marriage after the first is not sacramental.
The cardinal’s olive branch seems to accompany the sacrament of the Eucharist. Why shouldn’t a bishop be able to determine if a divorced and remarried believer could return to the sacraments? Handled carefully, it says nothing about a broken first marriage that hasn’t already been said or isn’t already obvious.
Several things may be said here (though weve covered this ground before.)
The Church holds Sacramental marriages are indissoluble (that is, between two baptized folk).If there is a non-baptized, that marriage can be dissolved in “favor of the faith: (Pauline Privlege sometimes referred to as “Catholic Divorce.”)
The theology base is that a metaphysical bond is created in the wedding of two baptized -an unbreakable one. I’ll leave it to the the thologians to argue whether this is what Jesus meant or whether this was a philosophical construct to butress the notion of indissolubility.
For over 50 years now, there have been huge rumblings on the pastoral/canonical handling of dicvorce and remarriage, including the movementin matrimonial canon law from “insanity” to “due discretion” as a basis for annulment.
A number of famous marriages (and not so famous ones too) were annuled after many years and children on this kind of approach.
The complex canonical structures (“defender of the bond”, “courts of second instatnce,” for example) were seen as more legalistic ways of trying to solve the pastoral issue here created by (can I use the phrase?) using the Eucharist as a weapon to punish divorce and remarriage.
Since other failures (and divorced folk usually go through lots of pain) are “forgiven” and folks move on in the Church, this continues, as David notes, to be a sore point and many do not abide by the rules.
At the last synod, the genie was out of the bottle wghen the matter arose for consideration.
Now it’s out again.
The problem here.as I see it, is two fold:
- having canon lawyers do pastoral theology (as we’ve noted elsewhere) leads to tensions that may be less than useful-
-barring folks from Eucharist often does not have the “medicianl” effect canonists say it does.
“In the centuries during which the marriage of Christians was left to the state… how was the issue of divorce and remarriage handled?”
According to Philip Lyndon Reynolds (“Marriage in the Western Church”), Roman law automatically granted divorce to the spouse of someone taken captive by a foreign power, and the remaining spouse had the right to remarry. Roman law also allowed divorce by (almost certainly) unilateral repudiation of one spouse by the other, or the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Grounds were not necessary, but divorcing without grounds was considered dishonorable. Classically, it was assumed that divorce was done with the right to remarry.
The Christian emperors issued restrictions on the legitimate grounds for unilateral repudiation and issued penalties for “unjustified divorce.” As soon as Constantine, divorce could be granted only if the woman was “an adulteress… poisoner.. or a procuress,” or only if the man were “a murderer, a poisoner… or a destroyer of sepulchres.” A man or woman who divorced for other reasons basically lost the right to remarry.
The Western emperor Honorius revised the law, demanding celibacy for people who unilaterally divorced their spouse for any other reason than “serious and proven crimes.” The innocent spouse who was divorced could remarry after a period of a few years.
The Eastern emperor Theodosius revised the law, allowing even men and women who renounced their spouse without criminal cause to remarry after a period of some years. Divorce by mutual consent was allowed, with right to remarry, until Justinian abolished it in 542 (his son restored it), but Justinian did allow divorce by mutual consent with right to remarry if one of the two spouses entered religious life. Justinian also allowed renunciation with right to remarry for a significantly broader list of reasons than Honorius.
The stricter Western understanding of marriage, Reynolds says, seems inspired by Mark 10:9 (“What God has joined together…”). He points out that the Eastern Justinian wrote, with “unconscious irony,” that marriage was a human bond and therefore “whatever is bound is soluble.” Reynold concludes with the opinion that the Eastern emperors strove to make legislation that was Christian in the sense that it was more humane (that is the explanation they themselves repeatedly give when changing marriage law), whereas the Western emperors strove to make legislation which was Christian in the sense that it was self-reflectively or dogmatically consistent with the radicality of the sayings of Jesus.
In the Eastern Church, the civil legislation issued by Justinian has–in the words of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church–”been tolerated, if not approved.”
In the Western Church, as Frances and Joseph Gies explain (“Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages”), “though the Church’s doctrine of indissolubility remained in clear conflict with both Roman and Germanic divorce law, Church councils of the first two centuries of the Middle Ages made little effort to combat divorce.” Charlemagne, under pressure from the bishops, “prohibited divorce on any grounds” in the 790s. During the Gregorian Reform (10th and 11th centuries), reformers in the hierarchy further clarified and enforced marriage laws.
I apologize for the length of this little discourse, but it’s actually very short compared to Reynold’s chapter on the subject, which is worth reading. :-)
Jimmy Mac: “When you make the rules you can break the rules.” Okay, but this particular rule – marriage’s indissolubility – is taken directly from Scripture. Cardinals have high rank and wide influence, but possibly not enough to rewrite God’s word.
Little Bear: “hate to say it, but much time is spent in Diocesan Tribunals doing just that—dissolving marriages—-proving that they were not ‘valid’ at the time that they occurred for one reason or another.” At the risk of picking nits, tribunals do not “dissolve” or “prove”; they investigate, examine and render judgement. Beyond that, though, you’ve laid your finger on the key objection to the Cardinal’s trial balloon: there already exists a process, called the annulment process, that has successfully permitted tens of millions of Catholics to divorce civilly, remarry in full communion with the church, continue to receive sacraments, and so on. Tthe annulment process also has the great virtue of being in keeping with the true nature of marriage. Whether or not the Cardinal’s suggestion shares that virtue is yet to be seen.
Todd Flowerday: “Look to the East. We consider Orthodox sacraments wholly valid, yet their approach to divorce and remarriage seems theologically and pastorally sensible. Broken marriages are recognized.” While it’s true that we recognize the validity of Eastern sacraments, this isn’t really a question of the validity of sacraemnts. Nor is it a question of recognizing that marriages are broken; the Latin Churh recognizes as much. But the hard fact is, we’re not in accord with the East on this matter. I believe they permit up to three marriages in a lifetime, but not a fourth or fifth; to Westerners like me, this approach seems somewhat arbitrary and also seems to contravene the theology of the indissolubility of the marriage bond. (No disrespect intended toward Orthodox readers of this thread; hopefully it is not news to them that Orthodox and Catholic discipline and theology disagree in this matter).
Possibly the Cardinal’s framework is in accord with existing Catholic theology and practice; but if it is, the Tablet article didn’t convey it. Without that accordance, I don’t see how the suggestion can succeed.
Couple more quick points:
The exception clause in Matthew (Jesus’s real words or something later allowed in by the canon) shows even in the first days the problem. Later of course the previously noted Pauline privelege.
Clearly a commitment to ti the “true nature of marriage” with a simulttaneous cpncern for the good of souls is ewmbedded in God’s word.
The fact that the annulment process continues to loosen up in making a judgement on nullity indicates the same underlying pastoral problem and recognition. In recent times, the argume thas been made for the Church to get out of the labyrinthan process. I owuld be interested to know how the figure “tens of millions” was rrived at. Also would be interested to know what study has been made of the impact on the party who did not seek the annulment and may well hav efekt they were in a true union.
Seems to me we’re in the same argumen tas we just had below -legislate answers and use Eucharist as the club.
The United States is home to only six percent of the world’s Catholics, but it now accounts for 75 percent of all Church annulments.
The good Cardinal is about to reach the point where he can say: “As the Church has always taught …..” and implement a more pastoral approach to dealing with an obvious failure of dogma to be accepted by the masses.
Someone asked about the Church’s historical position on the matter. A consideration of the circumstances of Henry VIII might help. Likewise the position of Nicholas I vis-a-vis Lothar II and his attempts to divorce his wife, Theutberga, and marry his mistress.
In these many cases, it was the wife who was the injured party, and the popes who supported her. The examples cited here in defense of divorce [and remarriage] are from emperors, not from popes or bishops.
The delicate matter is that divorce [separation] is not forbidden; the crux is remarriage. And the crux there is the vow freely given. Can you trust a man [or a woman] who gives contradictory vows? “Til death do us part, unless someone better – younger -richer – prettier comes along? “. In this respect, I assert, I am a feminist.
“Clearly a commitment to ti the “true nature of marriage” with a simulttaneous cpncern for the good of souls is ewmbedded in God’s word. The fact that the annulment process continues to loosen up in making a judgement on nullity indicates the same underlying pastoral problem and recognition.”
I agree that it’s a good thing that the church is being more generous in granting annulments.
” In recent times, the argume thas been made for the Church to get out of the labyrinthan process.”
Well, nobody enjoys it. I’m sure everyone would welcome a better idea.
” I owuld be interested to know how the figure “tens of millions” was rrived at.”
Sorry, bad math on my part. The church grants about 50K annulments worldwide each year. I should have said “millions”.
” Also would be interested to know what study has been made of the impact on the party who did not seek the annulment and may well hav efekt they were in a true union.”
Not sure I know what you’re asking, but at least in the US, annulments aren’t granted until the couple has already civilly divorced. In other words, it seems that the ship has already sailed on that marriage.
“Seems to me we’re in the same argumen tas we just had below -legislate answers and use Eucharist as the club.”
That’s not the intent of the church’s discipline. I agree that the rules can seem harsh. Christianity is very hard sometimes. We should all do what we can for those who suffer for the sake of obedience.
I had hoped that others migh tjoin in, but hwere’s mt last comments:
-the divorce rate among Catholics in this country would indicate the annulment process is not doing a great job of promoting the calues of Christian marriage.
It appears clear that the discipline of Comunion for divorced/remarried Catholics could change and would have a positive pastoral impact, yet I fear the problem is precisely the fear of change of letting go of a discipline instead of tinkering with it by broadening bases for annulments.
Telling folks to obey,even if it’s hard, is hardly compelling if the church could change but (as seems to be so often the case) fears doping so will waaken their authority.