Will Church synod open door to remarried Catholics?

An assembly of 270 bishops from around the world has been meeting in Rome since Oct. 4 to discuss "The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World."

Its task is a global examination of Catholic family life but, fair or not, many Americans and Western Europeans will measure success on whether there is some adaptation of the refusal of Holy Communion to Catholics divorced and civilly remarried. This prohibition is but one topic among many on the Synod's table through Sunday, but in our culture it ranks high enough to expect something other than reaffirming the status quo.

First, let's review the status quo. When two baptized persons marry who were "free" to marry (for example, not bound by a previous marriage to a still living "ex"), the man and woman enter into a sacramental marriage that is a lifelong bond and unbreakable even by the pope. It is also a civil marriage bond recognized by the state.

Let's say Alex and Beth, Catholics married for 12 years, had three children before they divorced in a civil process. The divorce does not excommunicate them from the Catholic Church nor does it prohibit them from going to Communion, provided a subsequent civil marriage hasn't happened. They remain as fully Catholic as anyone else.

Suppose Alex meets never-married-before Clare whom he wishes to marry. Two avenues lie open to him. If he wishes his Catholic Church to perform the marriage, Alex needs to obtain an annulment, a church judicial process that, if successful, decides that his marriage to Beth lacked, from the very start of it, certain features necessary for the sacrament of marriage to have happened — though it was always a civil marriage. If Alex applies for the marriage to be examined, the investigation must contact Beth and invite her input.

Let's suppose that the process, however long, leads to a declaration of nullity of their marriage. What about the children? Are they now illegitimate? No. Legitimacy means lawful. It is a civil term. Alex and Beth were civilly married for 12 years, thus their children were born of "lawful wedlock." An annulment does not undo legitimacy for the children.

But what if Alex takes the second avenue open him. He and Clare get married. (The Catholic Church considers it a civil ceremony whether performed by Clare's Protestant pastor or by a justice of the peace.) Alex attends Mass from time to time, maybe weekly. But he is not allowed to receive Communion, a most precious privilege for Catholics, because he has remarried without an annulment. It's possible this stand-off continues for many years because Alex values his Catholicism. But most divorcees cannot take the disconnect. They quit. It's too hard every Sunday for the divorced and remarried to observe that they are not fully part of the family.

Here is the block that the Synod in Rome faces with the "Alex situation." Two reasons are offered why an accommodation cannot be made except for advising Alex to try for an annulment.

Reason One: "You are still married to Beth in the eyes of the Church; therefore, your intercourse with second wife Clare are acts of adultery. Continuing adultery prohibits you from receiving Communion."

Stretched as it sounds, it is a reason that requires a response in order to get beyond the status quo. I'll make a case: Adultery in most cultures is a civil term, like illegitimacy is. Adultery means a married person having sexual relations with someone not one's spouse. That's what it seems to mean around the world. It does not mean having sexual relations with your spouse of a second marriage. This interpretation includes Mosaic Law, where the commandment almost thunders, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But the Mosaic Law allowed divorce, and the Israelite in a second marriage was not committing adultery.

But Jesus, one will say, overturned all that by refocusing on the primordial commandment of Genesis 2:24 concerning marriage: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." True, and it needed doing because some justifications for divorce in Jesus' day were quite lenient, such as not cooking well. Castoff women were victimized, and Jesus demanded that this stop. Jesus wanted marriages to last. Still, he used the word adultery in the manner we do for dalliances outside of an existing marriage. I am unaware that he or the early Church called people in second marriages adulterers.

Reason Two is: "A marriage is life long and you promised to keep to it. You divorced and remarried. Because you are no longer in a lifelong marriage, you cannot go to Communion." This is not so readily answered.

It's a fact that Alex and Beth broke up, and he would say, "I'm as much at fault as anyone on why Beth and I didn't work out, and there's much I'm sorry for."  By whom is it said, and for what reason is it said, that ruptured foreverness in and of itself precludes forever receiving Communion?

There's no doubt that the prohibiting reason has oft been repeated, but what is the precise justification making it cogent and understandable? Why cannot it be overturned for pastoral reasons?

Many hope the Synod can find some pastoral pathway on behalf of divorced Catholics who have remarried. There are many reasons why people quit the Catholic Church. But has anyone left because the Church is too forgiving?

Edward Jeremy Miller is a professor emeritus of religious studies at Gwynedd Mercy University. miller.e@gmercyu.edu