Bravo, an excellent article by James Coriden. I will not repeat what has already been said. I add the following insightful contradiction:
In the sacrament of reconciliation, there is a principle of graduation that is applied to habitual sinners. This principle was formulated primarily to resolve the moral and pastoral dilemma about contraception. Contraception is practiced by 97% of worldwide female married Catholics and it is an issue of conscience. Every parish priest knows that most married Catholics that line up each week to receive the Eurcharist practice contraception. These individuals also do not confess contraception as a sin in the sacrament of reconcilation because they don't believe it is a sin. Thus, the principle of graduation was introduced where the person over time was expected to reform his or her life through constant prayer, reflection, pastoral guidance and the frequent reception of the Eurcharist. Since most Catholics do not confess contraception as a sin, those few that do have no real firm purpose of amendment. The problem was, after receiving absolution, why would a person go to confession everytime they contracepted, which is often every week. The answer: they did not. Conscious is the guide of every Catholic that practices contraception. Few, if any, priests and bishops have ever spoken from the pulpit or issued a bulletin that warned Catholics who contracept that they committ a sacriledge if they don't confess contraception as a sin before receiving the Holy Eurcharist. There are no fequent reminders from the pulpit or official communication because this would likely result in a significant reduction in Mass attendees, and their weekly contributions.
Now, consider the following: The principle of graduation is offered to Catholics who habitually contracept, but not to the dvorsed and remarried, who are also habitual sinners in the eyes of the church.
The church has yet to explain this contradiction.
James A. Corriden certainly knows canon law, and he assuredly has a pastoral heart informed by a right conscience. I hope that many distraught Catholics have the privilege of reading and understanding this article, and that it is not buried under some bushel basket. I also hope that they are fortunate enough to find an understanding pastoral counselor to accompany them on their journey, for just as a canonical annulment process is not morally or physically possible sometimes, so too understanding pastoral counselors are not always at hand in many circumstances, sad to say. In any case, thanks to Corriden and to Commonweal for such an article. "Come to me, you who are labored and burdened," he once said. Here's hoping too that there are not too many crank responses.
While the 'pastoral solution' does what it intends, it still often leaves the couple in a state of uncertainty and subject to complaints of others who may be expouses or family and former friends. They are denied the sacramental grace of remarriage in the church. And in the author's view, they must struggle with acknowleging they have grievously 'sinned' as the former marriage breaks down. The article also begins with a statement that seems to make the case that marriages break down for trivial causes. In my experience in working with several hundred situations where the external forum with a marriage tribunal has been involved, none of these marriages ended for trivial or 'sinful' reasons. Each was a tragic loss, a loss mourned and regretted, often with excrutiating pain and agonizing of conscience. Unfortunately, our church adopts a juridic tone in its approach to healing these situations and often causes people to self-excommunicate. Finding a compassionate pastoral advisor is often very difficult and many years go by before they can find the courage to pursue either an annulment (what a poor use of a word) or pastoral solution. The East also has a method called 'Economia' which recognizes the need for a divorced person to move on with his/her life and allows remarriage within the church 'for the good of the parties and children.' In some countries it is simply vital to economic survival but it also seems vital to personal grace and long term spiritual peace. We need to update our church's theology of so-called 'permanent' marriage and recognize that ideals are great but practical solutions are also needed. The mission of Jesus was to heal the broken-hearted. His church must do at least as much.
The Commentary on Canon Law was published by the Canon Law Society of America, and accepted by Rome in 1983. Commentary on Canon 843 reads: "The proper disposition of faith and devotion can be judged adequately only by the person who seeks the sacrament." Regarding Canons 915 and 916 the Commentary further states that "The minister (of the Eucharist) cannot assume, for example, that the sin of public concubinage arising from divorce and remarriage is always grave in the internal forum. Any nature of the sin should be resolved by the minister in favor of the person who approaches the sacrament." So it appears that there is NO Canon law that absolutely sanctions Catholics in irregular status.
Also, any teachings or legalities Rome uses must be interpreted, and find their strength, through Sacred Scripture. Not one-liners either. Recall the Gospel story (John 4) of the Woman at Jacob's Well, and Jesus' discussion with her about being "married five times and living with another man who was not her husband." He did not admonish her; on the contrary, he graced her to spread the Good News; and she receive that grace, because her ministry was indeed successful. Jesus gave his real presence to this woman, and he gave his presence to her rather generously. He also told her that he was the Messiah, and the whole town believed her an invited Jesus to stay a while.
Similarly throughout the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus graced his real presence to "public" sinners, and that numerous times he shook the ecclesiastic boat of his own time with his major themes of forgiveness, compassion and mercy. Should not the leaders of the Catholic Church follow this example?
James Coriden presents an eminently pastoral option to the constraints of the prevailing situation. I would suggest that sacramental theologians need to give serious consideration to rethinking how we approach this sacrament of marriage. We ascribe to this sacrament a permanency analogous to ordination and yet, we give it short shrift in ensuring that the couple is sufficiently prepared to accept the lifetime commitment. How is it that we demand that one preparing for the lifetime commitment of the presbyterate must undergo a battery of tests, four years of study and adequate pastoral practice before receiving the sacrament of ordination. While for this equivalent sacrament of commitment, the Church requires only one visit to the priest for assurance the couple is fit for the sacrament. It is no wonder we are confronted by this sacramental dilemma. The recent article "Modus Vivendi" was indicative of this. Fr. Coriden provides a pastoral 'fix it." What we need is theological rethinking!
Balderdash of the vintage I would expect to find only in Commonweal, NCR or U.S. Catholic.
I know a number of remarried people who are communing members of our church. I don't know their exact background nor do I want to know. It seems I would have to be snoopy to know if their behavior might be scandalous. Even then, who am I (who is anyone) to be scandalized? Who are we to judge?
As for conscience, how else to personally encounter God? We don't do so just by following rules. Our pastor's sermon tonight focused on how Jesus called, invited, encouraged the would-be apostles to follow him. He didn't order them. Would that the church today do more calling, inviting and encouraging and less ordering.
Bravo, an excellent article by James Coriden. I will not repeat what has already been said. I add the following insightful contradiction:
In the sacrament of reconciliation, there is a principle of graduation that is applied to habitual sinners. This principle was formulated primarily to resolve the moral and pastoral dilemma about contraception. Contraception is practiced by 97% of worldwide female married Catholics and it is an issue of conscience. Every parish priest knows that most married Catholics that line up each week to receive the Eurcharist practice contraception. These individuals also do not confess contraception as a sin in the sacrament of reconcilation because they don't believe it is a sin. Thus, the principle of graduation was introduced where the person over time was expected to reform his or her life through constant prayer, reflection, pastoral guidance and the frequent reception of the Eurcharist. Since most Catholics do not confess contraception as a sin, those few that do have no real firm purpose of amendment. The problem was, after receiving absolution, why would a person go to confession everytime they contracepted, which is often every week. The answer: they did not. Conscious is the guide of every Catholic that practices contraception. Few, if any, priests and bishops have ever spoken from the pulpit or issued a bulletin that warned Catholics who contracept that they committ a sacriledge if they don't confess contraception as a sin before receiving the Holy Eurcharist. There are no fequent reminders from the pulpit or official communication because this would likely result in a significant reduction in Mass attendees, and their weekly contributions.
Now, consider the following: The principle of graduation is offered to Catholics who habitually contracept, but not to the dvorsed and remarried, who are also habitual sinners in the eyes of the church.
The church has yet to explain this contradiction.
Father Coriden, Many thanks, we (the entire Church) owe you a debt of gratitude. You write candidly on a subject that leaves most of us dumbfounded. On this subject I hear more and more about the internal forum. Would you please write more about this forum and "irregular" marriages? PS I note your article appears in the same issure of COMMONWEAL that "INQUISITIONS, THEN AND NOW" appears.