The article, “Holy Communion for Divorced & Remarried “ by Cardinal Jorge Estevez of the Vatican, (July 2006) was indeed thought provoking. Much of what I read provoked my dormant feelings of anger and disgust at the hypocrisy and insensitivity prevalent in the Catholic Church.
Besides being married for 22 years (not very long) I have for the last 38 years (long enough) been working among youth and laity in faith formation, evangelisation, lay leadership, etc. I have been very specifically involved in Marriage Preparation for youth, and marriage guidance for couples. I make these averments because what follows may draw howls of protest from “comfort zone” Catholics. My observations are based on both first hand experiences, and several years of study of scripture and church teachings.
Let us consider the venerable Cardinal’s views on marriage, divorce and communion for divorcees who have remarried. The Cardinal says nothing new. It is the established doctrinal position of the Catholic Church. I subscribe fully to the Catholic Church’s objective teachings on the sanctity and sacramentality of marriage. In fact, I believe that in a tempestuous sea of sexual licentiousness, the barque of Peter is indeed a sobering influence and a beacon of light. The problem is not the objective teaching, but the subjective application of Church regulations.
A comparison will best illustrate my point. A Catholic priest goes through 12-14 years of indoctrination before ordination. He goes through various “aptitude “ tests. Several lakh rupees of public money is spent on his training. He is then presumed to have “rightness of intention and freedom of choice” (Vatican II “Decree on Priestly Formation” OT No.2) He then receives the sacrament of ordination. His sacrament is a bond, with the ecclesial community, that he is expected to guide and serve. It is not a unilateral commitment, because he is welcomed and accepted by the ecclesial community in the ordination ritual.
Subsequently, despite all this preparation, enlightenment and investment; an ordained priest may be freed from his sacramental bond and obligation, if he so chooses. The Catholic Church invariably grants dispensation/ laicisation for priests seeking it.
Why then double standards for the matrimonial bond? Is it because the clergy/ hierarchy make the rules, keeping their own vested (vestmented) interests in mind? Let us examine the criteria for marriage, as enlisted in the Code of Canon Law. In the matter of “matrimonial consent”, which is a pre-requisite for a valid marriage, it states as follows:
“The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
- Those who lack sufficient use of reason
- Those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionally judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted.
- Those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage (Canon 1095:1-3)”.
Regarding ignorance about matrimonial consent and knowledge, the law further states: “This ignorance is not presumed after puberty “(Canon 1096:2). In modern society girls are attaining puberty, as early as in their 10th year of age, and boys at 12! What can the Church “presume” about them? What about the three criteria for “matrimonial consent “? They cannot be taken in absolute and objective terms. This is a “grey” area, where no outsider, not even an ecclesiastical authority, can pass judgement. In India 95%, if not more, are ”arranged marriages”. There is little or no marriage preparation. A short course, conducted by a dogmatic and doctrinally oriented parish priest, after the wedding cards have been printed, is grossly insufficient, to prepare a couple for marriage, or to fulfil the canonical requirement of “matrimonial consent”.
In the given circumstances, it is humanly impossible to categorically state that the basic criteria for a valid marriage are fulfilled. We cannot go by presumptions or assumptions. I daresay that the demands on an individual in a marital bond are far more vigorous than for the clerical bond. If two priests in a parish house don’t talk to each other; if one is an alcoholic or a debauch; it does not directly affect the other. If there are serious differences of opinion, one can easily get a transfer, and begin life afresh. Such options are foreclosed for married couples. My contention therefore is that there is nothing absolute in human relationships. Even Peter could not muster the courage to reply categorically to Jesus’ question, “Do you love me more than these?” (Jn 2:15). Paul, the prolific writer, could not define love. He came off second best by telling us what was not love (cf 1 Cor 13:4-7). If humans are incapable of the absolute, can any man made law hold them to absoluteness? If priests can get their clerical bond dissolved, why shouldn’t a similar approach be adopted for the marital bond?
I must reiterate that the permanent marital bond is the ideal for individual happiness, for the good of children, and for the benefit of society. However, a philosophical thumb rule is that an affirmation of one thing is not the negation of another. Therefore our affirmation of the marital bond should not negate our empathy and concern for those whose bonds have broken. Who are we to judge them? How can we presume that they had full knowledge and consent at the time of marriage, or even after? Women and children are the usual victims. They have no voice in the dogmatic and doctrinal corridors of power, authority and decision-making.
The Cardinal’s concluding remarks that divorced and remarried couples should live as “brother and sister” under the same roof is a cruel joke. It is obvious that the Cardinal’s knowledge of human psychology and physiology is abysmal. How can Catholic couples expect any empathy from such an ostrich like approach that shies away from reality?
This brings us to the last point regarding denial of communion to the Divorced and Remarried Catholics (DARC). Should the DARCs be left out in the dark? If there is no absolute means of determining knowledge and consent in a marriage, can we be so resolute and rigid in denying communion to the DARCs? Are the millions of other Catholics, who voluntarily receive communion, holier than the DARCs? Is an alcoholic husband who bashes his wife every other day holier than a DARC, just because he hasn’t “divorced” his wife? Are his recurring actions not worse than divorce? I know several priests who are confirmed alcoholics, and some who are sexually active, who nevertheless get up the next morning to celebrate the Holy Eucharist. Are they not a greater source of scandal to the ecclesial community, than the DARCs? On the other hand I have also met a few DARCs and would hesitate to call them “public sinners”.
If I recall correctly, Bishop Cornelius Jansen of Ypres, in the Seventeenth Century, was the author of the Jansenist heresies. One of the ideas propounded by him was that Holy Communion was a reward for being good. The Church condemned this approach, stating rather that Communion was a source of sustenance and nourishment for the weak. This magnanimous attitude is powerfully reflected in the most important document of Vatican II – the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”, better known by the Latin words Lumen Gentium. It states, “the Church, embracing sinners in her bosom, is at the same time holy” (LG No.8 *).
We have no right to condemn DARCs, and call them public sinners, living in mortal sin. They may in fact be having a more loving relationship between them than many “married” couples. While on the one hand upholding and respecting the Catholic Church’s teachings on the sacredness and sacramentality of the marital bond, I feel it is time that the Catholic Church took a more empathetic view of the DARCs, and not give absurd advice to them to live as “brother and sister under one roof”.
As AICU National President in the 1990’s I was pushing hard for the Government to enact new Personal Laws for Christians for Marriage, Divorce, etc. I met stiff resistance from sections in the CBCI. In that context I had then stated, “Celibate old males sitting in boardrooms, should not decide the fate of young couples in bedrooms.” It created an uproar. I still hold that view. Married couples, lay leaders and women should be actively involved in moral theologising, and ecclesial legislative processes; on issues that directly affect their lives.
Leave a Reply