Christ and the Woman of Samaria by George Richmond, 1828
Posted on 02/05/2014 10:39:39 AM PST by NYer
Canon lawyers are fascinated by the Samaritan woman at the well. The moment we hear about her five husbands, and her consort, we start thinking about how her case might be handled at the marriage tribunal. But the most instructive part of the story is how Jesus relates to her: he is kind to her, and respectful, but he is unabashed about telling her the truth.
Over the past few months, an ecclesial dialogue about pastoral care has been played out in the media as if it were the precursor to a monumental doctrinal split among the Church’s leadership. The question is about the reception of Holy Communion by those divorced and remarried without the benefit of a declaration of nullity, or annulment.
Of course, ecclesiastical leaders know that second, and third, and fourth marriages not preceded by annulment are presumed to be invalid; that a presumably valid first marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise. This is a basic component of Catholic sacramental theology, and hardly a matter of dispute.
What may be in dispute is how to care for the divorced and remarried: How to invite those living conjugally, but outside the bonds of marriage, to the communion of the Church. The question is a pastoral one. And it needn’t be a source of ambiguity or division.
Like all pastoral questions, the solution is found in the action of Jesus himself. As at the Samaritan well, the pastoral solution for the divorced and remarried involves something very simple: telling the truth.
Jesus Christ desires all of us to receive him at the Eucharistic table. His blood was shed, his body pierced and crucified, as a universal invitation to participate in the Eucharist, and in Christ’s divine life. What’s required is a heroic commitment to virtue and fidelity of Christian life.
May the divorced and remarried be invited to the Eucharist? Yes. But like all of us, to receive the Eucharist with integrity they must live heroically in accord with the truth.
Christ and the Woman of Samaria by George Richmond, 1828
The Church has always taught that living in a sexual relationship outside of a valid marriage is an impediment to Holy Communion. She teaches that still. And when the divorced and remarried present themselves to their pastors, she must teach the truth then. But it is never an adequate pastoral solution to simply tell the divorced and remarried to refrain from Holy Communion, to remain in the pew, and to maintain the status quo.
The pastoral solution is to invite men and women to a heroic kind of conversion. In 1994, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that the divorced and remarried may receive the Eucharist if they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”
Under ordinary circumstances, such couples should physically separate. But the Church recognizes that separation may be impossible: that couples may be raising children together, or financially dependent, or caring for one another in ill health. Separation might be ideal, but what is necessary is a commitment to living continently: to living in accord with the truth.
The issue of scandal is a serious one. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that couples living continently must be “respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.” The Catechism says that scandal is “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.” To keep others from scandal, those living continently should take care not to imply that their relationship is inappropriate – if their invalid marriage is unknown, they could remain private. If their invalid marriage is well known, they could be forthcoming about their choice to live in accord with truth. A flood of candor can mitigate the trickle of scandal.
Each of us is invited to the Eucharistic table. We need only repent, and commit to greatness. Too often, the pastoral solution is perceived as the unchallenging solution, the accepting solution. Too often, pastors and tribunal ministers hesitate to call the divorced and remarried to conversion. We’re afraid that continence seems too hard, and too dispassionate. We’re afraid that truth will be inimical to a pastoral relationship.
But the truth is always pastoral. And calling Christians to discomfort, and challenge, is evangelical. Conversations about continence are uncomfortable. But as Pope Benedict XVI has said, none of us were “made for comfort. [We] were made for greatness.”
At the well in Samaria, Jesus Christ was pastoral. He invited the Samaritan woman to repent, and to live heroically. He invited her, from her sinfulness, to greatness. If the Church today will invite men and women to greatness, to virtue, and to communion with Jesus Christ, we will have found the “pastoral solution.”
Kicked out of school? I did that in parochial school.
Did you mean Church? If so, for what?
Oh, and I forgot to mention the time I said “swine” because the teacher was asking everyone to say a foreign word. It’s the only one I could think of (I was severely punished). By the way, punishement usually took the form of some kind of public humiliation. When I said strict, I wasn’t kidding.
I don’t understand what you mean about ‘join’. Are you saying they won’t let her join the RCIA program because she had a child out of wedlock? Or they wouldn’t let her join the Parish?
I don’t see how that can be. In my experience, a child out of wedlock isn’t a problem for belonging to a Parish. I had a niece who had a child out of wedlock, and she not only remained a Catholic, but had her baby baptized in the Church.
As I said, I don’t really know all the details, I just remember being told these things quite a few years ago. I actually shouldn’t have said anything at all, but now it seems I’ve set off a fire storm. I don’t know if the term was actually “join”, actually. It may have been something else. I just recall that the church wouldn’t let them do certain things, I don’t remember what.
OK, so it sounds like your niece wasn’t allowed to participate in the Sacraments, which makes sense, if she wasn’t Catholic. Anyone can attend Mass, but not everyone can receive Holy Communion, if they are not baptized Catholic, and have prepared for the reception of the Sacrament.
I’m not really into such details. I do consider myself a Catholic, however, because EVERYONE in my family and extended families are Catholic, going back to the first generation Russian immigrants. I do happen to disagree with some Catholic doctrine, namely how the same things are repeated mechanically with each mass, with little attempt to establish their real meaning. There is also a socialist-like liberalness about many Catholics, and the Church itself takes no stance against it, and in fact often in support of it.
The same things are repeated at each Mass, and if you get a good book explaining the Mass, you’ll understand why. Much of what happens, and many of the prayers, are based on Scripture, and some are based on those from the Shabbat service and the Passover Seder, which would have been important to the early Christians, as many were Jews. If you learn this history of the Mass, you’ll understand the beauty of the prayers, and saying them the same at each Mass will only deepen your appreciation for them.
I’m old and in the South. “Strict” meant strict in my school.
So if you mean kicked out of school...
If you mean kicked out of Church, well, I think you’re saying that didn’t happen.
I’m not demeaning your bad experiences in Catholic school; just making a couple of points:
It could be pretty darn rough in parochial schools also, and that’s quite different from being kicked out of Church.
The Church has been very good to me, so I apologize for my own bias.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.