An Indecent Proposal?
Earlier this week, Sandro Magister published an article about a proposal for allowing divorce and remarried persons access to the Sacraments when the previous marriage is valid. Currently the only way this can be allowed is when the couple agrees to live together as brother and sister.
This proposal is from Fr. Alberto Bonandi, a moral theologian from the Archdiocese of Mantua. Magister says that he is a leading authority in the field of fundamental moral theology. The curious things about this proposal is that it fully recognizes that the first marriage is the only licit marriage, so in essence the second marriage is one of concubinage. Even so, the proposal suggests a host of careful procedures for a process of penance and reconciliation over a long period of time. After this time of penance, the priest, and not the individual/couple, with a charter from his bishop, is allowed to readmit the spouse/couple to the Sacraments.
First, I must say that I fully recognize the great tragedy of the situation of divorce and the situation in which a remarriage has produced children. I understand that separating the couple would damage the children and so the couple must be allowed to remain together (though I do not think that this is the case if the marriage has not produced children). I have a family member in this situation which makes this much more than an abstract problem for me.
Nevertheless, I find this proposal disconcerting. Just from a practical perspective one can see that it is unworkable. The possibility that the precisions of the sort proposed by Fr. Bonandi could be transmitted to the faithful at large is dubious at best. Just look at our Friday fast. I would guess that the percentage of Catholic who abstain from meat on Fridays throughout the year is very small. The majority do not because they have been told it is not obligatory. True enough, but there is an obligation to substitute some other penitential practice. My experience suggests to me that almost no Catholics have heard this very simple precision. The possibility that anything of the sort that Fr. Bonandi proposes would be implemented in practice, is inconceivable. In essence, most Catholics would eventually believe that a priest can allow them to remarry if they get divorced and I suspect that this is what would end up happening in practice as well.
Moreover, in the short translation that Magister provides, Fr. Bonandi’s rationale is not made clear. Bonandi almost seems to be saying that since we allow cohabitation without sex in irregular marriages and that this situation therefore separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the union then it is only just to allow the integral aspects of a pseudo-marriage. I find this incomprehensible. First, the admonition that they live together as brother and sister does not seem to suggest the type of relationship that Fr. Bonandi presupposes. Regardless, this proposal seems to me to be nothing other than a proposal to tolerate fornication. After all, it is the fornication that prevents access to the Sacraments in the first place. The inability to approach the Sacraments when in a state of grave sin is not simply a matter of Church discipline; it is a matter of revealed truth. Every act of intercourse with someone who is not one’s spouse is another grave sin. This is not to mention that there would be no purpose of amendment. I don’t see the liceity of this proposal. It appears to base itself on the Orthodox oikonomia, which I find problematic because it seems to presuppose that God can overlook human rejection of the truth which falls prey to voluntarism it seems to me, and that grace is insufficient to overcome human weakness.
If the persons in these situations can be brought to the level of spiritual maturity that Fr. Bonandi proposes, prior to their readmittance to the Sacraments then it seems to me that they could also be brought to the maturity to accept, and through the grace of the Sacraments live, a celibate life.
My heart breaks for broken marriages and for those in irregular marriages who now desire to reconcile with the Church and receive the Sacraments. I do not know the answer, but I do know that as I understand it, this proposal is not it.
.jpg)
Is seems to me that “thou shalt not commit adultery” has been downgraded to a venial sin.
Comment by Tony — July 29, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
There is no middle ground in this case. Either adultery is a grave sin or it is not. Access to the sacraments is always dependent on repentance.
The old saying hard cases make bad laws is especially applicable to this circumstance. These are very hard cases and situations that I can easily have compassion for. But compassion that denies truth is not compassion. Compassion means to “suffer with” and I can easily enter into this suffering with those in these circumstances. My own parents were divorced and as a teenager suffered through this brokeness, though that experience only proves the truth of what the Church teaches and what Jesus specifically said.
Comment by Jeff Miller — July 29, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Be prepared for something like this to get attention in the new regime and for it or a similar proposal to be adopted. Joseph Ratzinger, before being driven to the far right by John Paul II, advocated readmiting the divorced and remarried after a period of probation. The Bonandi proposal is modest in nature and shows a genuine pastoral concern. It also reflects an understanding of what it is to be human, something the current policy does not do. Currently, a divorced and remarried person with children may be admitted to the sacramental life of the church only by renouncing the sexual “good” of the second marriage. It imposes an obligation to remain with the current spouse and to foreswear one of the primary elements of their relationship to each other. It is ridiculous on it’s face to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature. The lives that these people find themselves living may not be what Christ intended for them, but for those who genuinely desire to be fully reconciled with the church, is it really the church’s contention that He wants them cut off indefinitely from our sacramental life? While I think that the gospel is a much more radical concept than most of us live, I cannot imagine this Jesus of Nazareth saying “Abandon your spouse and children or abandon the sacraments I instituted for your good.” He would find a way to reconcile that does not involve this silly pretense that there is no more sex in the house.
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 3:56 am
David - some thoughts:
…before being driven to the far right by John Paul II…
Importing ambiguous and anachronistic political terminology into ecclesial discussions suggests to me that you mistake the Catholic Church for simply a socio-political organization? It is not. Either it is the Church that Jesus Christ established and continues to guide and keep pure through His Holy Spirit or these and all other discussions about Church teaching and discipline are mute. Thus, it is not a matter of being on the political left or right, or being liberal or conservative, it is a matter of being Catholic and therefore, committed to obedience to God by submitting to the authority of His Church. Please do not make the mistake of justifying disobedience with the excuse that one is of a different political stripe.
Of course you know also that as Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that he does not believe that he has changed; however, he does acknowledge certain errors in thinking that he held and now rejects.
The Bonandi proposal is modest in nature and shows a genuine pastoral concern.
Pastoral concerns are too often used as euphemisms for ignoring the truth and often reflect what John Paul the Great referred to as pharisaical juridicism. In other words, this is presupposing that the issue is one of arbitrary discipline and so if one discerns that the demand is too great, then the “rule” ought to be dispensed with. Your argument seems to make this error. It also fails to address the inconsistency in the Bonandi proposal because Fr. Bonandi does not see the issue to be one of simply discipline. He recognizes that the second marriage is no marriage at all but is willing to overlook the fornication.
only by renouncing the sexual “good†of the second marriage.
Herein lies the problem. There is and can be no second marriage, thus there is no “sexual good” to be renounced. Church teaching is consistent on this matter and says as there is only one valid marriage and so neither spouse can validly contract another while both spouses are living. Thus, sexual relations with anyone else is fornication.
It is ridiculous on it’s face to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature.
No, it is only ridiculous for those who do not understand the power of grace and apparently assume that human nature means little more than animal instinct. I admit that living a celibate life, especially in this type of situation, would certainly be difficult but it is not impossible. Human nature was meant to be infused with grace. Our fallen state may make these types of situations difficult but grace makes them possible.
is it really the church’s contention that He wants them cut off indefinitely from our sacramental life?
Certainly not, but here you beg the question. You have already concluded that sexual relations outside of the first marriage are, if not licit, at least necessary and cannot be avoided and so you conclude the only option is life without the Sacraments. I have argued that your premise is faulty. Read Ephesians 5. Marriage is a participation in the mystery of Christ’s relationship to His Church. Suggesting that divorce and remarriage is possible implies that Jesus can reject His Church and establish another.
I cannot imagine this Jesus of Nazareth saying “Abandon your spouse and children or abandon the sacraments I instituted for your good.â€
You are being inconsistent here. Above you recognize the Church does not advocate abandoning the children but now you suggest that it does. You also seem to conflate the idea of a civil spouse with a legitimate Sacramental spouse. If one has divorced then he has already abandoned his spouse and children, if there were any. You also present a false dichotomy for you leave out the option of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Read Matt 19.
He would find a way to reconcile that does not involve this silly pretense that there is no more sex in the house.
The “silly” adjective suggests that you do not understand or do not want to. First, it is not a pretense. It is a statement of what needs to be the case if one wants to be in a state of grace.
It is very dangerous to presume to speak for Jesus. One can rationalize many a strange notion when his only guidance is the worldly culture that has formed his thought. However, Jesus did provide for human beings to speak authoritatively in His name. That is why He left His Church and the chair of Peter.
Comment by David — July 31, 2006 @ 8:34 am
It imposes an obligation to remain with the current spouse and to foreswear one of the primary elements of their relationship to each other. It is ridiculous on it’s face to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of human nature.
Certainly, this is a mainstream, modern point of view. But any close reading of the New Testament makes it pretty clear it was _not_ the view of the early Church. Like it or not, the apostles not only considered abstaining from sex to be entirely possible and indeed a pretty good idea. That’s one of the things that made them radical by the contemporary standards of any period. The Church recognizes humans to be more than the sum or their biological urges, and thus believes that one can not only overcome the need to have a current sexual partner, but indeed one may become closer to God by thus distancing oneself from the material world.
Comment by DarwinCatholic — July 31, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Geing new to the blogsphere, I want to say that I am glad to see the quality and civility of the debate here.
A few reponses if I may.
I will concede that political terms are sometimes misleading, especially in theological discussions. That said, I think it fair to say that the exercise of power in the JP2 papacy was “authoritarian,” especially in light of the leadership of John 23 & Paul 6. Sometimes necessary, sometimes just heavy handed.
I do not want the church to back away from proclaiming the truth, but there is no dogmatic question present here. What the church teaches about the sacraments is a matter of dogma. Who she allows to participate in them is a completely “pastoral” decision and practices in this regard vary greatly. (The oriental rites preserve the traditional baptism, confirmation, eucharist order for the sacraments of initiation while the occidental latin rite seperates baptism from confirmation, usually by about a decade and a half and inserts eucharist between them.)
I will maintain that insisting that people in this situation forswear the sexual elements of their relationships is unrealistic. In a situation where both parties are catholic and desirous of returning to the sacraments it might be possible with extraordinary effort. The more likely scenario is that only 1 partner is catholic or wanting to reconcile with the church. The effect of terminating the sexual element of what the non-catholic spouse regards as a true marriage will have the effect of ending that relationship in divorce. In almost all situations the result will be the catholic partner needing to choose between the abandoning the partner and children or abandoning the sacraments because the other partner will rule out the sexless relationship.
It seems to me that finding some way to readmit these people to the sacraments is preferable to the solution that I am sure many of them use: go to a parish where the pastor doesn’t know your situation and participate in the sacraments.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
Comment by David — August 5, 2006 @ 2:59 am
David -
You present a very compelling pastoral connundrum. In fact, someone very close to me is in that precise situation. You also make an important distinction between essentials and accidental with respect to the Sacraments.
However, I do not believe that you make a proper application of this distinction in terms of administration of the Sacraments. Not everything in terms of administration is disciplinary. For example, the Church cannot substitute rice cakes for unleavened bread when someone requests this (even for valid medical reasons), She has not the authority to substitute invalid for valid matter. Neither can the Church offer the valid absolution to an unbaptized person because that person is not in a state of grace; he has not (yet) become a “new creation.” Even if She did the Sacrament would have no effect. Likewise, someone who is validly married to another person cannot engage in sexual relations with anyone else. If he does then he has betrayed his solemn oath to be faithful to his spouse until death and violated an unbreakable covenant. Scripture and Tradition are pretty clear on this matter, what God has joined man has not the power or authority to put asunder. Thus, a person in an objectively grave state of sin cannot receive communion. This would be a contradiction in signs. Communion which symbolizes and effects an ineffable and unbreakable union of Bride with her Bridegroom then would be attempted to be entered into by a bride or bridegroom who had already ratified a relationship (marriage) based upon and participating in this Communion, but having forsaken it and entered into another pseudo-communion. Like the case of invalid absolution, even if someone allowed this the person would not receive the grace of the Sacrament and in fact would be committing a grave sin by attempting to do so.
This is not a matter of pastoral application but one of fundamental truth. There are some very hard cases. In these, John Paul provided what I think is the only situation, we draw them near in the life of the Church, we pray for them and with them, and we share in their sufferings.
As for whether JP the Great was authoritarian or not. You will have to provide some examples of what you are interpreting as authoritarian and how you define the term. Did he exercise his authority and obligations to guide the Church as he saw necessary? Certainly! Though there are many who also complained that he was too soft-handed. Paul VI was derided as being too authoritarian because he promulgated Humanae vitae against the advice of his mostly lay committee (although his other two committees supported the Encyclical). I would suggest that it depends upon whom you read for this authoritarian interpretation and what view of the Church one has. If one wrongly imposes a democratic model of governance upon the Church, JPTG will be seen to have been too authoritarian. It one wrongly imposes a military hierarchical model upon the Church then JPTG will be seen as being too lax in his governance. However, I submit that if one correctly views it as a family with the Pope as the father then the error of these negative assessments becomes apparent.
I also wish to thank you for charitable demeanor. Unfortunately blogdom has become a too much a place for spleen venting in which very little but ire is exchanged. If one cannot see the other person’s point of view and find the truth in it then one is not yet in a valid position to comment upon it.
Comment by David — August 5, 2006 @ 9:36 am