Has anyone else read Bishop Thomas Tobin’s letter posted on the Providence Diocese’s website? He invites discussion. Thus, with all due respect, I would like to share my concerns. The bishop writes:
In my personal reflection on this dilemma, I turn to the incident in the Gospels in which Jesus and His followers were walking through a field of grain on the Sabbath and because they were hungry, began to pick and eat the grain, a clear violation of an important Mosaic Law. The offense was roundly condemned by the religious experts, the Pharisees. But in response, Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:23-28). In other words, while not denying the validity of the law, our Lord clearly placed it in a “pastoral context,” exempting its enforcement due to the human needs of the moment. Could we not take a similar approach to marriage law today?
One cannot really compare the issue of divorced-and-remarried Catholics being allowed to receive Holy Communion with the incident where our Lord’s apostles are charged with violation of the Sabbath by picking and eating the heads of grain (Mk 2:23-28). The first is in regard to spiritual disposition and the sacrilege of taking Holy Communion while in mortal sin. The latter simply focuses upon a pharisaical interpretation of the commandment demanding rest. The apostles were not in any grievously sinful state. Jesus excuses them, as a foretaste of the freedom that comes with his dispensation. But, more than this, Jesus is God. The lawgiver can excuse whatever laws he wills. The Church can also make modifications, as with our keeping the Sunday Observance over the traditional Hebrew Sabbath. However, such authority is not absolute and this juridical rendering is a far cry from trying to circumnavigate around basic objective moral norms. The Church and the Pope do not have the authority to authorize sin and sacrilege.
What constitutes a genuine pastoral approach? Excusing or enabling serious sin is no favor to anyone. While we may be troubled by exclusion and feelings of hurt; how can these compare to the fires of hell and the loss of God’s friendship. The pastoral cannot be so focused on the external situation or appearances that we neglect the internal reality. The corollary to the assertion that “matrimony is made for man, not man for matrimony” does not find its solution in feigned second marriages but in a chaste celibacy. Promises are made to be kept. If the first marriage is authentic, then as long as one spouse lives, any attempted second marriage is a fiction. That is the long-and-short of it. There is no viable solution out of this conundrum. This is more than “the lofty demands of the law,” but the enduring truth that the two become one flesh. Affections might stray but one spouse continues to belong to the other. Infidelity is stealing what is the spouse’s due and giving it to another. There is no way that the Church could rubber-stamp such a scenario.
The bishop writes,
But at the same time, the Church has taught the pre-eminent value of receiving the Holy Eucharist, and I keep hearing the words of Jesus about the Eucharist, words that are just as valid and important as His words about marriage: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53).
Missing from this assessment is the ancient teaching, recited in the sequence for Corpus Christi, that the same sacrament which brings life to one, brings judgment to another. Purposely giving Holy Communion to those who are in an adulterous situation would invite condemnation upon them and ridicule upon a hypocritical Church.
Bishop Thomas Tobin states:
And I know that I would much rather give Holy Communion to these long-suffering souls (divorced-and-remarried couples) than to pseudo-Catholic politicians who parade up the aisle every Sunday for Holy Communion and then return to their legislative chambers to defy the teachings of the Church by championing same-sex marriage and abortion.
The bishop means well and he says, honestly, that he does not know the answer to the predicament; however, sympathy for small devils while castigating large ones is no answer at all. A man can jump from one ledge to another. If he misses by a foot or an inch, it makes no difference. He is still just as dead. This is the appropriate analogy here.
Bishop Tobin echoes an article in the National Catholic Reporter by Fr. Peter Daly who suggested that annulments be simplified by handling the situations entirely at the local level. The bishop writes:
Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams, and automatic appeals to other tribunals? In lieu of this formal court-like process, which some participants have found intimidating, can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage (after all, they are the ministers and recipients of the sacrament!) and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion?
The true Sensus Fidelium is that collection of the laity that keeps our moral laws and regularly goes to Mass. They would be critical of this proposed solution. The grounds for annulments often rests in ignorance, deceit, lack of proper discretion, inability to fulfill the obligations of marriage, mental problems, prior addiction, etc. People are often blind to their own faults and shortcomings; but here the bishop is literally saying, “Physician, heal thyself!” Would this apply for only the second marriage? What about the third? What part would “the other woman” play when marriages were deliberately destroyed? Such a measure would play into the hands of selfishness. Many of them do not understand the difference between an annulment and a divorce. If the bishop’s notion were adopted, there would be no difference— and a basic command from Christ would be explicitly violated.
This is all quite serious. The marriage analogy plays a crucial part in our understanding of the Church’s relationship to Christ and the sacrament of Holy Orders. Weaken one and we hurt the others— the dominoes will begin to fall.
Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Conscience, Discipleship, Divorce, Eucharist, Hell, Liturgy, Magisterium, Marriage, Morality, Reflection, Religion, Sacraments, Salvation, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Uncategorized |
Blogger Priest 
The Holy See Press Office on Saturday announced Pope Francis has decided to establish a Special Commission for the study of the reform of the matrimonial processes in canon law. The decision was made on August 2, 2014.
This Committee will be chaired by Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota. The other members are: and will be composed of the following members: Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, SJ, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Bishop Dimitri Salachas, Apostolic Exarch of the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church; Msgrs. Maurice Monier, Leo Xavier Michael Arokiaraj and Alejandro W. Bunge, Prelate Auditors of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota; the Rev. Fr. Nikolaus Schöch, O.F.M., Substitute Promotor of Justice of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura; Fr. Konštanc Miroslav Adam, O.P., Rector of the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum); Fr. Jorge Horta Espinoza, O.F.M., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Pontifical University Antoniamum; and Prof. Paolo Moneta, formerly professor of Canon Law at the University of Pisa.
The work of the Commission will start as soon as possible and will have as its goal to prepare a proposal of reform of the matrimonial process, with the objective of simplifying its procedure, making it more streamlined, and safeguarding the principle of the indissolubility of matrimony.
(from Vatican Radio)
KARL:
When there is an unjustified divorce, and each of these are known and well substantiated to those involved in the annulment process, this information should be completely forwarded to the ordinary, to the Rota, to the Papal Signatura and to the Pope, immediately before any decision is rendered.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
In union with the Holy See, the local ordinary, having complete knowledge of the unjustified divorce (as is the case in our marriage regardless of what lies the Church may fabricate this time), should inform the guilty party or parties that due to their behavior having been established that the action to divorce was unjustified, they have not established the necessary credibility to give reliable, objective testimony in a canonical legal proceeding. Except in emergencies, express permission is to be sought from the ordinary for legal separation and divorce, per existing canon law. This permission was not obtained in our case either.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
The ordinary should require a personal appearance from the guilty parties, at his office and he should give them a fixed period, unless they can absolutely prove to him at this meeting that their divorce was an emergency if no permission was sought, to admit, in public, their crimes and demonstrate such action has legally been, at least, legally and personally, substantially begun, after which, in the absence of these changes and admissions, formal excommunication would be invoked.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
This should be done in every single unjustified divorce.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
All canonical standing of an unjust divorcee should cease and they should be denied complete access to Catholic Church property and access to clergy until they repent, in public in a legally binding manner.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
This is what every marriage deserves from the Catholic Church. It is true mercy and true justice and defends both truth and the institution of marriage as a whole and in individual cases.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
In our case, I called the local ordinary, Bishop Gerald O’Keefe, then of the diocese of Davenport, Iowa. I asked him to intervene on behalf of our marriage to work for reconciliation. This was before our divorce was final. His response, burns in my memory: “Why would I help a man who has abandoned his wife and children?”
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
I was forced from our home with threats of divorce. My wife’s parents were wealthy. She told me she had a blank check from them to destroy me. She made it perfectly clear that she would take everything from me, including our five children and do ANYTHING she felt necessary. I HAD NO CHOICE. This lie came from my wife to the bishop who never bothered to solicit the perspective of BOTH spouses. When the annulment started our children’s GODPARENTS testified in favor of our marriage. This entire unending nightmare is a lie and has always been so.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
But the Church refuses to take any action except to pursue nullity. It has never attempted to work to heal this marriage although I have sought that directly and indirectly for decades.
Cases like ours are everywhere in the Church.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
Of course I am furious. BUT, I have never closed the door on reconciliation, this is public knowledge. Nor have I been unfaithful to our vows. I had no say in our children’s sacraments, the lover did.
In every diocese and parish my wife and her lover have lived, they have been welcomed as husband and wife, in every way but a wedding.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
Go right ahead and spit on my fidelity. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLERGY FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.
FATHER JOE:
KARL:
The only reason our marriage survived nullity was NOT my testimony; it was that of the GODPARENTS. They have respected our marriage.
ONE WOULD THINK THAT THEIR OPINIONS MIGHT BE SOUGHT EVEN AFTER ALL THESE YEARS?
FATHER JOE:
Read the Rorate Caeli blog and see what is going on. Exactly as to be expected.
Yes, you are likely to dismiss it again. Blind. You would not have seen Hitler coming either, is my guess, were you in Europe in the 30’s. I am sorry for you.
My faithfulness to our vows, Francis spits on.
He will have his day before his maker, as will I.