Catholic Papers - articles & Letters
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE DEBATE ABOUT READMITTING TO HOLY COMMUNION THOSE IN IRREGULAR MARRIAGES
The debate about whether those in so-called ‘irregular marriages’ should be readmitted to Holy Communion is a hot topic at present. People, including some of the cardinals, are weighing in on all sides and if we are not careful, it could become a singularly unedifying spectacle. We would do well to heed Paul’s warning about the dangers of forming factions (1 Corinthians 11.18) when we come to the Eucharist. My own close involvement with the discussion dates back to the early 1990s when I produced a report for the ‘Marriage and Family Life Committee’ of the Bishops’ Conference, before going on to complete my Ph.D. at Heythrop College on the whole question of pastoral care in this field. An edited version of the thesis – What binds marriage? Roman Catholic theology in practice – is still available from Bloomsbury.
I am greatly encouraged that Pope Francis has invited the whole Church to prepare for and contribute to the synod in the autumn. Surely this requires that we listen to one another in charity and try to discern what the Lord wants? The fact that Cardinal Kasper was invited to address the College of Cardinals at the recent consistory is clearly significant because he has long advocated that we ask ourselves whether the present discipline is a true reflection of what the Gospel envisages. Proof-texting – the reinforcing of an already established position with scripture quotations – is one of the pitfalls that awaits anyone who enters into theological dialogue and it is for this reason that I sincerely hope that some eminent scripture scholars will play a significant role at the synod in October.
When I was undertaking my research I met those who condemned the bishops of England and Wales for inviting me to undertake the work on the grounds that the scriptures and the Church’s unbroken tradition were unambiguous. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that Matthew (5.32 & 19.3-9), Mark (10.1-12), Luke (16.18) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7.10-16), all make it clear that Jesus clearly taught that divorce was not part of the Father’s plan. However, in Mark and chapter 19 of Matthew, the teaching is a response to the Pharisees’ challenge over the fact that Moses allowed divorce and so Jesus is offering guidance relating to all marriages of all time, not just what later came to be defined as Christian marriage or ‘marriage in the Lord’. It is worth noting this because much of the debate and some of the uncertainty comes from the so-called ‘exception clauses’. In both the references in Matthew the Greek word, porneia,is used, and there is no agreement as to what Matthew had in mind. All we do know is that it is an attempt by Matthew to interpret Jesus’ teaching for a particular group of people. Much clearer is the exception in Paul, which came to be known as the Pauline Privilege and was ultimately extended to embrace any marriage in which one of the partners was not a baptised Christian (the Petrine Privilege). Therefore, in practice the Church has and can find ways of dissolving any marriage bond, which is not a sacramentally consummated one ‘in the Lord’; in other words the majority of marriage bonds in human history.
Add to this the Church’s willingness to adopt Roman jurisprudence and annul even supposedly indissoluble sacramental bonds when there is deemed to be sufficient evidence to suggest that there was something defective in the consent of the couple and you have an added complication in trying to present to the wider world an uncompromising position on the consequences of marital breakdown.
The fact is that there are many Catholics who are dismayed and confused by the Church’s teaching and pastoral practice and in some cases they feel abandoned by the Church and therefore rejected by Christ. How does this square with the fact that throughout his public ministry Jesus sought out and dined with all the wrong people, especially those who had been rejected by the religious leaders of his day? The teaching Church has much to ponder at the forthcoming synod. I hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will enable us reverently to listen to one another and discern a way forward.
Timothy J. Buckley is a Redemptorist and parish priest of Our Lady of the Annunciation (Bishop Eton) and St Mary’s, Woolton, Liverpool
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE CATHOLIC HERALD
PUBLISHED ON 7 MARCH 2014
It was a relief to see Fr John Daley’s letter published in your newspaper last weekend. I was beginning to wonder whether mine was a lone voice in the wilderness of Catholic Herald respondents. I am not sure whether it is wise for me to prolong the conversation regarding the possibility of readmitting Catholics in second marriages to Holy Communion, but since you began the discussion by asking me to write the feature (January 17), perhaps one more response to those who are struggling with my approach would be opportune. Annalisa Hamilton (Letters, February 21) describes my argument as oxymoronic, Andrew Breen (Letters, February 21) seems to think that if we pursue the subject the reformation martyrs will have died in vain and Fr Bryan Storey (Letters, February 28) thinks that I am living in a fantasy world.
Like Pope John XXIII prior to the Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis has invited the Church to examine its pastoral effectiveness, and especially in the field of marriage and family life. Even last Friday at his Mass he pleaded with us to reach out to those who have experienced the failure of love in their lives: “Don’t condemn them! Walk with them.” If your respondents’ reading of history is correct and the unfolding story has been a seamless progression of clear teaching and understanding, then we must ask why Pope Francis has invited us to prepare for a synod on the subject. I am reminded of Pope John XXIII’s opening address at Vatican II, when he challenged those whom he recognised were full of zeal, but in his words, “not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure”. He went on: “They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty,” and he said he disagreed with them. Likewise Cardinal Vincent Nichols, on this very subject, was quoted on your front page (February 14), encouraging us to listen to one another “without pushing too quickly to the black and white questions and answers”.
I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am certain that there are serious anomalies and discrepancies in our present pastoral practice, which can lead to miscarriages of justice. I believe as a community of faith we should have the courage and humility to address these questions. No matter what the outcome of the synod discussions may be in this field as in every other, I hope and pray that we may never forget that Jesus came to redeem us all and that there can be no situation which is beyond his redemptive love and mercy. That was my starting-point when I offered my thoughts in the original feature and in my subsequent letters. This is not a fudge. If I did not believe that to be the ultimate truth, then I am not sure how I would be able to exercise my ministry as a Redemptorist priest.
Timothy J. Buckley, CSsR
LETTER FROM FR JOHN DALEY IC
PUBLISHED IN THE CATHOLIC HERALD: 28 FEB 2014
Thank you for Timothy Buckley’s fine feature article on marriage and his consequent letter. He writes with clarity and compassion. We must bring healing where there has been hurt in broken marriages and lives, and the whole tenor of his writing reflects that compassionate understanding.
From St Paul until now the Church has framed the ideals of married love that Jesus speaks of in the Gospel with laws to guide towards living those ideals. Laws have been introduced, modified and changed down the centuries. I remember our lectures on the Pauline privilege and how startled we were to hear of the power latent in the Petrine privilege – which claims to be able to dissolve all non-sacramental marriages, effectively most marriages in our world. I quote from my notes: “ In 1924 Pope Pius XI dissolved the marriage of a Protestant and an unbaptised person for the Portestant to marry a Catholic. In 1947 Pope Pius XII dissolved the marriage of a Catholic and an unbaptised person (dispensation had been given) for the unbaptised person to marry another Catholic. In 1957 Pope Pius XII dissolved a Muslim marriage for one to marry a Catholic.”
Fr Timothy is asking what the Church may do in our age. He was a wise choice by the bishops of England and Wales when they asked him to undertake his research some years ago. When people need healing you don’t tell them their wounds are self-inflicted, you help heal. That healing is clearly what inspires Fr Timothy. I write to support a fine pastoral priest.
Fr John Daley IC
LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC HERALD
PUBLISHED ON 21 FEBRUARY 2014
In his rather enigmatic letter (Letters 14 February), Fr Bryan Storey does what so many people do and concentrates on the disputes surrounding the teaching on birth control in 1968. It would be easy to forget the seismic shift in the Church’s theological vision of marriage occasioned by articles 47 to 52 of Gaudium et Spes in 1965 and reflected throughout the text of Humanae Vitae.
Fr Timothy J. Buckley, CSsR
LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE CATHOLIC HERALD
PUBLISHED ON 7 FEBRUARY 2014
SIR – It is rewarding to see that my article on the possibility of readmitting to Holy Communion those in apparently irregular marriages (Feature, January 17) has stirred some of your readers to respond. However, I could not help but note with interest that of the four respondents published, three were priests and the other was a layman (Letters, January 31). I mention this because so many women have been in direct contact with me, grateful for what I had written and encouraging me to continue to explore a way forward. And just for the record, quite a number of priests and laymen have contacted me with encouraging comments too.
None of your correspondents deals with the central argument of my article: namely that for all our insistence, we so often fail to give witness to the sanctity of marriage in our pastoral practice. Yet each of them seems somehow to have concluded that I am seeking to undermine the authority of the Church. I find this baffling because I have never questioned the de fide teaching on the sacramental and indissoluble nature of Christian marriage and did not do so in the article. What I do find less than foolproof is the unfolding story of the Church’s efforts to defend this belief in its theology and pastoral practice. May I illustrate this simply by posing the not uncommon situation of two Christians, from traditions other than Catholic, who marry in a register office? They are not bound by canonical form and therefore their marriage is regarded by the Church as an indissoluble sacrament, for since the publication of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the sole criterion is the fact of their baptism, not whether they believe or practise their faith. Now if their marriage fails and one of them should happen to fall in love with a Catholic, our only recourse is to see if there are grounds to seek an annulment of the original civil union.
When I was doing the research in the 1990s I recall asking one of our bishops who was on his way to Rome, to raise the above question and a number of similar ones with the then Cardinal Ratzinger. On his return he assured me that the Cardinal admitted there was still homework to be done. It is high time the homework was done. As we struggle to live fulfilled lives here on earth, it is true that if we are to be faithful to the Gospel we will probably have to suffer much, but Jesus did warn us not to lay unnecessary burdens. My challenge to all of you who seem to suggest that the Church has all the answers in this field and that there is nothing further to examine would be this: how can you be so sure? This attitude reminds me of those priests who refused to cooperate with my research all those years ago, stating that the bishops had no right to invite me to undertake the work in the first place because the Church’s teaching and the Scriptures were unambiguous. And once again the Orthodox tradition is dismissed in one of the letters, suggesting we have nothing to learn from them. When will we learn a little humility and recognise with the Orthodox that there is much that is mystery which we can never know for certain?
People often point to Jesus as having given us definitive direction when he was disputing with the Pharisees and reminded them of the Genesis text: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” The fascinating thing about this is that Jesus was not speaking here about “marriage in the Lord”, but about all marriages, so how was Paul able to give leave to the early converts to separate and move on if they could not live in peace?
Jesus came to heal the hurt and division in our broken world. Pope Francis is constantly urging the clergy to take up this mission of Christ and he tells us that we should be “shepherds living with the smell of the sheep”, but in this field how can we, if our only recourse is to a language which for many goes nowhere near touching their lived experience? I too know those who willingly accept that they are unable to receive Holy Communion because of the present discipline and who accept the pain and suffering that goes with it; and I admire them and know they are close to God. But I also know far more who have felt rejected and abandoned and who in sadness have gone their own way. Should we not be searching for ways of helping them to get their lives together again, rather than telling them that the only way to please God is to live without the comfort of another human being?
Dare I suggest that if ever there was a time when the clergy would do well to step back from laying down the law, it is surely now?
Timothy J. Buckley, CSsR
AN ARTICLE FOR THE CATHOLIC HERALD
PUBLISHED ON 17 JANUARY 2014
Some reasons for considering a change in the discipline of admitting Catholics in so-called irregular marriages to Holy Communion
It will be twenty years this Easter since I reported to the Bishops of England and Wales after undertaking a study for them on the Pastoral Care of Catholics suffering the sadness of separation, divorce or remarriage without the Church’s blessing. I had spent over four years interviewing hundreds of priests and people about their experiences as well as studying in depth the complicated history of marriage in the Catholic Church. This work, under the supervision of Heythrop College, was eventually accepted as a doctoral thesis by London University and subsequently published in 1997 under the title: What Binds Marriage?: Roman Catholic Theology in Practice. A second edition, including an extra chapter with some significant quotations from Cardinal Hume and Timothy Radcliffe, O.P. was published in 2002. The book is still available from Bloomsbury.
After their Low Week Meeting of 1994, the bishops made a statement in which they expressed their regret for their own failings and for those of their communities in this field and it led to a front page headline in the Catholic Herald of April 22nd 1994, which read: “Bishops’ divorce apology”. I remember this well because I received a concerned telephone call from the secretary to the conference, asking me what I had been saying to the Herald! The bishops had apparently decided not to use the word ‘apology’ and had settled for the word ‘regret’. Incidentally I had said very little to the Herald, except that there was nothing to add to the statement and that it would be impossible to summarise my 40 page document in a few sentences. The article in the Herald by Angus MacDonald spoke of “an unusually frank statement” and in fairness to him he had written that “it amounted to an unprecedented public apology.” Noting nuances of language will be significant if you are to persevere with this article.
When I had been invited to undertake the research I had willingly agreed because, of all the areas of pastoral concern that had presented themselves to me during my time as a priest – and I was ordained in 1970 – this had been the one above all that had left me feeling hopelessly inadequate. The research only confirmed my instinctive feeling that there was something amiss in our theological evaluation, which in turn limited our ability to find just and compassionate pastoral solutions. Furthermore, the research revealed that my instincts seemed to be widely shared by bishops, priests and people. I concluded that there are many difficulties, not least the fact that the theological tradition in the Western Church tends towards examining issues with a precision and accuracy that once a position is arrived at, it gives the impression of carrying absolute authority and therefore being beyond question. There is limited room in a short article like this to explore such ideas in depth. Suffice it to say that in my theological examination of the question I focused on how the Catholic Church defines the bond of marriage. This revealed a process of refining the definition in the light of pastoral problems that stretch back from those of our own day to the time of the apostles themselves. I never tire of pointing out that the first teaching on the question is to be found in St Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. In chapter seven you see him dealing with the tricky situation of marriages breaking down, precisely because one of the partners has converted to Christianity. Paul is uncompromising in calling them to faithful adherence to what ideally the Lord would want, namely that they should strive to make a go of it. However, fascinatingly he takes responsibility for his guidance should this not be possible – stating that this teaching is from him and not from the Lord – and advising that if a non-believing partner insists on leaving, the believer is not tied. His reason: “God has called you to a life of peace.”
This pastoral solution was the foundation for many other pastoral solutions down through the centuries and formed the basis of a distinction between the natural bond of marriage and the sacramental bond. It is probably worth remembering that few of the conclusions that the teaching Church arrived at were immediately obvious. For example, it took centuries before there was universal agreement that St Paul must have intended that a Christian in these circumstances was free to marry again and the Pauline Privilege became enshrined in law. And it was only in the Middle Ages that this privilege was extended to include all difficult situations relating to marriages where one of the partners was not a Christian. This was called the Petrine Privilege, not because it had anything to do with St Peter, but because it made provision for his successors, the popes, to exercise their authority.
This would seem to be a timely moment to speak of Pope Francis. However we view what is happening, I think it is fair to say he is challenging all of us to break free from the kind of rigidity in theological thought and pastoral practice, which prevents us from experiencing the joy and compassion of the Gospel. The fact that he has called a Synod on the Family for later this year and suggested a whole range of subjects on which he wants to listen to the experiences of all of us – and these include the problems surrounding marital breakdown – would seem to suggest that he too fears that the present pastoral solutions are not wholly adequate. I am utterly heartened by this development. From the very beginning I knew that the questions I had highlighted in my research were complicated and that moving the discussion forward would require patience and diplomacy. I had tried to explore the subject sympathetically, leaving the bishops as much room for manoeuvre as possible, and highlighting the fact that all the pastoral solutions open to us at present are the result of the Church responding to the differing problems that have occurred in successive generations. These would include the fact that in the wake of the Second Vatican Council annulments were being granted on psychological grounds, which had never previously been considered. But you would only need to read the extra chapter in the second edition of my book to realise my frustration that everyone’s hands remain tied when it comes to practical developments on all the major fronts.
Should we be able to readmit people to Holy Communion?
I was asked to offer in this article some reasons which could be advanced for re-admitting people in so-called irregular marriages to Holy Communion. I did not feel able to address this question without inviting you to consider the broader picture of how we are dealing with marriage breakdown in general. Of course the Church wants to support marriage as a life-long union, a reflection of the covenant between Christ and the Church. I am certain none of us would want to diminish or undermine this fundamental belief. At the same time the unfolding story of failed marriages in the Church provides us with ample evidence that the Church instinctively seeks ways of reaching out to support and help when things go wrong. We are able to offer practical solutions if the marriage wasn’t between two baptised people and therefore wasn’t regarded as a sacrament, by using the Pauline or Petrine Privileges and accepting the dissolution of the bond, that is, a divorce. However, in spite of the enormous increase in annulments in recent decades, for the majority of Catholics whose marriages fail, there is limited room for manoeuvre because of the teaching that the sacramental bond is wholly indissoluble. Therefore, should they seek the comfort and support of a new relationship, they are regarded as putting themselves outside the ordinary means of spiritual and sacramental support. Traditionally we would say they have chosen to “live in sin”. But do we really believe this to be so? I would suggest that the teaching Church, at the highest level, has been ambivalent about this in recent times. The last definitive teaching on the subject from a pope was the Apostolic Exhortation, Familiaris Consortio, by John Paul II. In article 84 he advised pastors to be careful to make distinctions between those who had sincerely tried to save their first marriage but had been unjustly abandoned and those who through their own fault had destroyed a canonically valid marriage. He also acknowledged that some may have entered a second marriage for the sake of the upbringing of the children. He goes on to urge pastors and all of us to help divorced people and make sure that they do not feel separated from the Church, reminding us that as baptised people they can and “indeed must” share in her life. However, the crunch comes when he spells out to what extent they may share in her life. He concludes that this cannot extend to the reception of Holy Communion and offers two reasons. The first is that “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, which is signified by the Eucharist.” The second is that “the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching.” However, he goes on to consider the possibility of people in these situations receiving absolution if they are willing “to live in complete continence”, in other words live without having a full sexual life.
It is difficult to explore all these matters in detail in a short article, but I invite the reader to consider a couple of the inherent contradictions in the position outlined above. Firstly, when it comes to giving scandal to others, how are we to know whether a couple has decided to follow the directive to live abstaining from sexual relations? Secondly, how can our renewed theology of the Eucharist, which stresses the fact that it is not a reward for being good, but a means of strengthening us to live close to the Lord in the midst of all our struggles, be explained to those who are being invited to join the assembly but forbidden to participate. It was this anomaly which troubled Cardinal Basil Hume when he went to Rome with the Bishops of England and Wales for the last time in 1997. As part of his address to Pope John Paul II he had this passage in his section on reconciliation:
In this work of reconciliation we are continually confronted, as pastors, with the situation of those in an ‘irregular union’ for whom there is no perceived possibility of canonical regularisation. We must maintain the clear and consistent teaching of the church concerning marriage. We must also act pastorally toward those in this situation whether Catholics already or seeking full communion in the Church. In this century especially, the relationship between membership of the Church and reception of Holy Communion has been affirmed and appreciated. It is not surprising that, despite reassurances, those who are not permitted to receive Holy Communion find themselves estranged from the family of the Church gathered for Mass. We are conscious of your deep concern for these couples and their families and your invitation to ‘help them experience the charity of Christ… to trust in God’s mercy…and to find concrete ways of conversion and participation in the life of the community of the Church’ (24 January 1997). We are anxious to receive encouragement from you to explore every possible avenue by which we may address this important and sensitive aspect of our pastoral ministry. (Briefing 27/11 (20 November 1997): 8)
There is a logic to the position which maintains that if you are in an irregular marriage you are ‘living in sin’ and are not welcome at the Eucharist. But for a very long time now the Church has studiously avoided using that kind of language. My own perception is that this is because there is a widespread recognition that our pastoral policy in this field has evolved into a complex web of rules and regulations, which can lead not just to inconsistencies and anomalies, but also to injustice. The challenge has always been to balance the need to uphold a clear ideal regarding the sanctity and permanence of marriage while at the same time bringing the compassion of the Gospel to every broken person and situation.
The fact is that it is difficult for the ordinary Catholic, let alone citizen, to appreciate the niceties of Catholic jurisprudence when it comes to the difference between natural and sacramental bonds and the application of what we call ‘canonical form’, namely when a marriage must take place in a Catholic Church for it to be valid. As a result, far from giving the clear witness to the sanctity of marriage called for by the Church authorities, I fear that too often we have left people bewildered as to why one person’s situation can be so easily resolved while another’s remains intractable. I judge that the upshot of all this is that the real scandal for many is that so many people are left seemingly abandoned by the Church, hurt and disheartened. I wrote about this in the research and twenty years later nothing has led me to change my mind. It remains an urgent pastoral problem which I believe can be solved, if we are willing to look again at our theological tradition and ask the simple question: “Can we be so certain that our present pastoral position is what the Lord really requires?” I think we need the humility to accept that some of our absolute positions may not be as certain as we have tried to maintain and to learn from other Christian traditions, whose theological vision has left them more room for manoeuvre.
For example, it is too easy to dismiss the Eastern Orthodox Churches as having been too liberal in interpreting the exception clause in Matthew or whatever. The reason the Orthodox are able to move forward in a way that we are not is that they employ the theology of oikonomia, which recognises the authority of the bishop to bring such problems before the Lord and find a way forward. The ‘bishop’ is the oikonomos (the head of the household)– the one responsible for keeping good order in the community. Is this the direction in which the Bishop of Rome is pointing us and the context in which he sees his role and that of his fellow bishops? I sincerely hope it is. In such a climate we may be able to hear in a new light our Lord’s teaching – “Whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven” – and begin to do a bit more loosing and welcoming.
Timothy J. Buckley, CSsR (Parish Priest of Bishop Eton and St Mary’s, Woolton, Liverpool)