New Hope for
Divorced and Remarried Catholics

"The court orders, good cause appearing, that a judgment of dissolution be entered. Marital status is terminated, and the parties are restored to the status of unmarried persons on July 15, 1995." Following the agony of a dying marriage and the grueling battle that usually follows, these words which appear on a divorce decree can, at least initially, bring a feeling of tremendous relief. In most cases, however, "the parties" discover that the pain is far from being over.

The ex-wife is awarded family car #1, one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the family home, one-half of the family savings and investments, and all of her clothing, personal items and jewelry (formerly gifts of love). The specifics of this list are usually the result of a heartbreaking "walk through" of everything that used to be "ours" but will become "some yours" and "some mine". The ex-husband gets family car #2, the remaining half of the assets, his clothing, personal items, and jewelry. If this language conjures up the morbid sadness of a death in the family, it should. Divorce is the death of a family and, just when you think the grief is as intense as it could possibly be, add a custody battle over young children who only want their parents and their home back together.

The antiseptic legalese of the divorce settlement speaks volumes of how the very heart is ripped out of a family and of how each member must be affected. Mom, dad, and kids become "petitioner," "respondents," and "the minor children." The family car, which dragged everyone to school and work then sped them home and away on vacation, becomes the "1992 Toyota Camry, California License 2ZED765, together with encumbrance." The home in which birthdays were celebrated, knees bandaged, acts of love and generosity performed, diapers changed, holidays as well as holy days observed, and hearts were filled with hope becomes "Lot 63 in Tract 18641, as per map recorded in Book 523, Pages 24-26 inclusive." The loss is, needless to say, devastating. Physically, emotionally, financially and, worst of all, spiritually depleted, divorced people look to a future in which their best allies and lovers are adversaries, their families are split, and even their identities are in jeopardy.

People to whom they can turn become sadly scarce. Friends who are couples may have divided loyalties. As a newly-single person, one may not seem to fit in as before. Embarrassment and feelings of failure can overpower one's former confident self. Treasured relatives and beloved in-laws who were a support may now disapprove. And then there is the horrifying thought of dating, which is only exceeded by the more horrifying thought of working, parenting and even living the rest of your life without a spouse.

When they experience tragic human events, people are in danger of hitting the depths of despair. It is then that the one refuge they need the most is the Church. For divorced Catholics, especially if they see possible remarriage as part of the light at the end of the tunnel, turning to the Church can be a bittersweet experience at best. The compassion and empathy of many Catholic communities are a blessing, as is the diligent work of parish priests and diocesan tribunals who process annulments. Some Catholics, however, find it impossible to deny that a former marriage ever existed. "It was real," they insist, "but something died." An annulment can mean reliving the pain of this death. It can also call into question, for parents and children alike, the legitimacy of the offspring - no matter how much the Church protests that is is left intact after an annulment.

On the other hand, no Christian Church should favor divorce. The Catholic Church opposes divorce and remarriage because Christ opposes divorce and remarriage. It must be kept in mind, as well, that most people who have been through divorce and remarriage would, themselves, condemn divorce and uphold the ideal of the permanence of marriage. It is not the purpose of this article to question the Church's teaching about the unacceptability of divorce, but rather to challenge the pastoral approach of the Church which makes the divorced and remarried person feel unacceptable.

In a letter dated September 14, 1994, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reaffirmed one of the hardest teachings of the Catholic Church. "In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid." This letter further clarified that attempts to circumvent this teaching by appealing to the primacy of one's conscience are to be considered futile. "Consequently, they (divorced Catholics remarried outside of the Roman Catholic Church) cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists." There are no exceptions!

If some of the Church's teachings are hard, so are some teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. St. John shows our Lord creating quite a controversy in the sixth chapter of his Gospel,"...This sort of teaching is very hard! Who can accept it?" (Verse 60). These were the words of some disciples who were among the many who called it quits and no longer followed him because of the teachings. Jesus stood his ground and asked The Twelve, "Will you also go away?" Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (Verses 67-68).

The teaching which caused such a convulsive reaction on the part of many disciples had nothing to do with loving enemies, or the shocking theory that a camel could make it through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man could make it into heaven. Nor was it related to His teaching about divorce and remarriage. Rather, it was Jesus' declaration, "Truly I say to you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (Verse 53). There are no exceptions!

Even though Cardinal Ratzinger's letter emphasizes that Catholics remarried in unsanctioned unions are not formally ex-communicated, in view of Christ's teaching in the 6th Chapter of John, Catholics banned from Communion may feel little consolation. The words of Peter may well be the words of divorced and remarried Catholics: "Lord, to whom shall we go?"

It is my position that like Peter and The Twelve, these Catholics should stay at the feet of their Lord and Master and wander nowhere. They should become familiar with His "words of everlasting life" and with His style of ministry in the Gospels. Is it likely that their experience of Jesus Christ could lead them to a much different conclusion than Cardinal Ratzinger?

It would be unfair to say that the tone of the now famous Ratzinger letter is devoid of concern for those cut off from the sacraments by the marriage law of the Roman Catholic Church. It encourages Catholic clergy to "accompany them pastorally and invite them to share in the life of the church. . ." It qualifies this invitation, however, by limiting this sharing to "the measure that is compatible with the dispositions of the divine law, from which the church has no power to dispense." The Second Vatican Council, however, teaches that the Church exists beyond the visible boundaries of the Roman denomination. If this is so, the Church of Jesus does not unanimously consider Catholic discipline on divorce and remarriage as divine law. By many this teaching is believed to be based on a narrow human interpretation of the Gospels which renders it a church law only. These members of the broader Christian Church include denominations which are nearly identical to Roman Catholicism like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are distinct from Roman Catholicism only in their separation from the jurisdiction of the Pope.

Different Christian approaches to the problem of divorce and remarriage do exist, and are not simply attempts to ignore a certainly divine teaching which is difficult. Clergy and all good Christians must put on their thinking caps and prayerfully encounter Jesus in the Gospels to see if the Church is really teaching and ministering the way Jesus did. Then, we can be assured as to whether the Church is really teaching and ministering the way Jesus would want her to!

Scripture scholars see at the heart of Jesus' "Good News" the proclamation that God delights in showing himself to be a loving and nurturing parent who rejoices over all of his faithful children, and even more so over regaining his lost ones (Luke 15:1-32). He rejects no one who is sincerely repentant. That is why it seems harsh when Jesus vehemently condemns divorce and just as vehemently condemns remarriage, particularly in Mark 10:1-12. In this passage, he does so leaving no room for exception, not even the much disputed exception, porneia (lewd conduct), used in Matthew's Gospel (see 5:32 and 19:9). It might seem to us that Jesus' actual words would be gentler than Mark presents. Unfortunately for those who may try to weaken Jesus' stand against divorce, the closer we come to the original teaching of Jesus, we must expect a more radical and unsoftened tone. Mark wrote the earliest of the Gospels and, in this passage, has probably done little to modify what Jesus likely taught. On the other hand, to comprehend Christ's teaching in any gospel, we first must understand his words in the various contexts in which they are spoken! If you would please read Mark 10: 1- 12, I would be happy to share with you some very interesting information that you may or may not already know!

Did you know that the Pharisees who questioned Jesus were really not interested in new information? They most probably already knew of Jesus' opposition to divorce but, more importantly, they also knew how his position could be used against him. Firstly, the Pharisees realized that his teaching contradicted the teaching of the Great Lawgiver, Moses. To bring Jesus into conflict with Moses, who acknowledged the existence of divorce (please read Deuteronomy 24: 1 -4), would possibly sow great doubts among Jesus' followers. A second way to threaten Jesus was accomplished by the same question since his opposition to divorce would bring him into public conflict with the Herod family, in which divorce ran rampant. Finally, if their aim was to destroy Jesus' following, they could do nothing better than to split his followers into two camps. You see, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, while it presented a regulation regarding a special situation when the divorce had already occurred, had little to say about the grounds for divorce in general. In Verse 1, the vague "When a man . . . is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent . . ." left room for many different interpretations. In Jesus' time, therefore, divorce had become a burning topic of debate among Rabbinic schools. In fact, there was a well-known controversy between the school of Rabbi Sharnmai, who held that "indecency" referred to adultery only, and that of Rabbi Hillel, who took a liberal stand that "indecency in anything" did little to limit the grounds for divorce. As a result, reasons for divorce became insignificant. If a wife were a "brawling" woman (her voice could be heard in the next house), if she were to spoil a dish, or even if her husband were to find one fairer than she, he could hand her a writ of divorce. The Pharisees stood to win a blow against Jesus since if he were to side with one of these schools, particularly- the more strict, he would lose the larger part of his following. This is because human nature being what it is, the more liberal interpretation had become the popular practice.

Now that we understand the context in which this exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees took place, we also understand much about the meaning of divorce in Jesus' time and why Jesus might almost be angry in his condemnation of it. Divorce was obviously not like our present day judicial procedure with an impartial judge mediating and attorneys representing husband and wife. Since, in Jewish law, a woman had no legal rights, the husband simply wrote his wife a bill of divorce, handed it to her, and sent her out of his house. Divorce, at the time Jesus was condemning it so adamantly, was no more than legalized adultery.

With all of this background in mind, together with an understanding of exactly who this Jesus was, the response which came from his lips makes perfect sense. He, the long-awaited Savior, came in truth to restore the harmony which existed between God and humanity before sin disrupted it. So Jesus answers with the words of Genesis, words from the time of that hopeful beginning when God created everything and everything was good. God's plan for man and woman was that the two would become "one flesh." The relationship, therefore, could not be dissolved without killing a living, unified human entity. As a natural result, Jesus condemned remarriage as well, which attempted to deny the first marriage and the responsibilities which flowed from it. If divorce is like a murder, remarriage is like adultery. It is sinful. God's original plan, the plan Jesus came to restore, did not include divorce. Jesus, then, who came in truth, could do nothing else but condemn it.

Well, here we are again. Where does any new hope lie for those who have really been victimized by the kind of divorce that happens in the 1990's? We all must realize that Jesus' intent here was not to cause pain, but to re-establish a clear and high ideal of human relationships - a vision of marriage as a covenant of personal love between spouses which signifies the committed, passionate covenant love between God and his people. He was also striking a blow for women, who found in marriage such abuse and insecurity that they hesitated to marry at all.

Jesus, then was not attacking divorced people, but by attacking divorce, was trying to restore a crumbling institution to the position God had intended it to have in the very beginning. Jesus also condemned both divorce and remarriage separately. Experience may make divorce seem like the greater of the two evils and remarriage seem like a hopeful new beginning of goodness. Church teaching, however, seems to represent remarriage as the greater sin while divorce alone is tolerable. The fact is that the Church has made exceptions to both of Christ's prohibitions, allowing divorce and, in some cases, remarriage. We have to conclude that since Jesus gave us the reason to prohibit divorce and also remarriage, we too must find in his words and example reasons to make exceptions. The solution for the Catholic who feels alienated from the Church because of divorce and remarriage cannot be found by trying to justify divorce. These Catholics can only be reconciled to the Church by realizing that Christ is eager to forgive divorce by making exceptions.

Salvation is ours, after all, not solely through Christ as teacher who comes to us in truth, but also through the saving Christ who comes to us in spirit. While Jesus is compelled to proclaim the truth about moral perfection, he does not offer his saving embrace to us only when we have achieved holiness. On the contrary, the Church long ago condemned the theory that salvation is the reward of our efforts. We are, instead, saved by God's grace, freely given to us as sinners and which itself produces goodness and salvation in us. This means that the great power which brings about our victory over sin does not rest in our observance of the law. "It should be obvious that no one is justified in God's sight by the law. . ." (Galatians 3: 11) Nor are we saved merely by the persuasiveness of Jesus' teachings. The greatest power that Christ brings to bear to render sin incapable of destroying us is his power to forgive as God forgives.

In condemning divorce and remarriage, then, it is hardly likely that Jesus intended to create the proverbial stone so heavy that God could not lift it. It was not, in other words, the mission of Christ to single these evils out as the sin so horrible that God could not forgive. Moreover, if Jesus was justly defending the permanence of marriage and protecting women, who were the most seriously offended victims of its demise, would he not be just and forgiving in dealing with individual cases of contemporary divorce as well?

The injustices involved in divorce are many and complex. The pain can be so great that, after all of the suffering, a distant, insensitive or punishing approach by the Church can only intensify the pain. While it is always risky to assign blame, there are cases in which there is a "good guy" who never wanted the divorce and a "bad guy" who leaves and may unjustly sentence the ex-spouse to a life of celibacy. It is also common to experience marital situations in which there are not a "good guy and a bad guy" but just "very different guys" for whom the cooperation necessary to sustain a marriage and create a family becomes impossible. It is perhaps most difficult to find justice in circumstances when children are condemned to a single-parent home in which, no matter how heroic the parenting, innumerable problems arise that might be better solved by a good second marriage.

Most Catholic priests would have to admit in a similar vein that the enormous energy expended to prove that a marriage never existed is really motivated by a desire to give divorced people opportunities to begin anew and enter into a new, happy marriage relationship. Would it possibly make more sense to turn over all the sorting out of all of the evidence to God, who knows peoples' hearts? Wouldn't a good Christian feel better with a "decree" of forgiveness by Christ rather than a decree of nullity from a tribunal which can be accompanied by its own special brand of emptiness?

Let's once again spend some time observing Jesus from the Gospel writer's perspective. His encounter with a person who had multiple marriages takes up the better part of the fourth chapter of John's Gospel. Yes, of course I'm going to stop and ask you to read it now!

To begin with, Jesus takes the initiative. He ignores the taboos against speaking to a woman in public and especially to a Samaritan who would be considered the refuse of the earth by any reputable Jew. As they banter back and forth at Jacob's well, Jesus carefully directs the conversation toward her marital status. "'I have no husband,' replied the woman. 'You are right in saying you have no husband!' Jesus exclaimed. 'The fact is, you have had five, and the man you are living with now is not your husband. What you said is true.'" (Verses 17-18)

One would think that such a statement by Jesus would carry with it such a potential for devastating the Samaritan woman. Not so. Despite what he said, her marital history posed no stumbling block for Jesus. In fact, he only used it to powerfully impact her with who he was! "'Sir,' answered the woman, 'I can see you are a prophet,'" (Verse 19) and "'I know there is a messiah coming.' Jesus replied, 'I who speak to you am he.'" (Verses 25-26)

If Jesus violated the sensitivities of the Jews of his day who would have him exclude Samaritans from his company, he was about to do something which would horrify the church which today excludes the divorced and remarried from the sacraments. He not only allowed this encounter to be a conversion experience in her life, but also a call to become an apostle of sorts who went out and, through her witness, brought others to the knowledge of Jesus. Somehow, the power which led to her conversion had not only to do with the fact that he was aware of everything she had ever done but, despite this, he accepted her anyway! For Jesus to have been anything but hospitable, loving and respectful of her, or for him to even gently suggest that she was unacceptable or that she even look back and somehow nullify her past, would be uncharacteristic of Jesus in the Gospels and would rob him of the power to change this woman.

When Jesus taught, he equated entering a new marriage after divorce with adultery. If we turn to John's Gospel (8:2-11), we can see an instance when Jesus is confronted with a woman who committed adultery. Once again, the Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus between Moses and this poor, humiliated sinner in the process. The scribes and Pharisees who brought her to Jesus actually had no power to put her to death at all (see John 18:31). In what I feel was at once one of Jesus' most brilliant and most self-revealing moments, he cut his opponents to the quick. According to the Law of Moses, she should be stoned. Coolly tracing in the dirt with his fingers, then rising, he suggested, "Let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her." (Verse 7) Back down he stooped and continued tracing until they all left. Straightening up again he asks her, "Woman, where did they all go? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she answered. Jesus said, "Nor do I condemn you. You may go." (Verses 10-11) Sinless as he was, this God-man could have condemned her. Jesus revealed what kind of Messiah he was, however, when, making another exception to the law, he did not condemn! He further revealed his ministerial style when he said, "But from now on, avoid this sin." (Verse 11)

Jesus did not agree to crush the woman according to the law but crushed the sin and undoubtedly caused the woman to change her life. Once again, he did this by accepting the sinner and not dwelling on the details of her past sinfulness. He showed himself to be a "from now on" type of Messiah! He upheld the truth as teacher, but brought fallen humanity into step with the truth by making exceptions. So has the Church, even from apostolic times. In Matthew's version of Jesus' teaching on divorce, porneia (lewd conduct), becomes a separate case. Even though this exception, also translated as "unchastity", has done little more than create controversy, it was, most probably, a softening of Christ's absolute prohibition by the evangelist. (Verses 5:32 and 19:9)

St. Paul establishes an exception where dissolution is allowed in favor of the Faith of a new Christian in I Corinthians 7:12-16. The Catholic Church continues this process today as the "Pauline Privilege." Even the Catholic processing of formal annulments has very likely gone far beyond anything Jesus had in mind when he prohibited divorce.

For the Church, on the other hand, to make remarriage the unforgivable sin because husband and wife continue to live in sin, is not only to limit Christ's power to forgive and transform the status quo into a new beginning of goodness but also to ignore an important fact about sacramentality. Marriage between two baptized Christians is a sacrament which at once is ministered and received by bride and groom. Every sacrament is a sign which outwardly indicates the inward spiritual reality or grace that really affects the recipient. In the Holy Eucharist, for example, the sign must remain intact for the sacrament to exist. If the consecrated Body of Christ apparent to us in the form of bread becomes mold, i.e., the appearance of bread changes to the appearance of mold,the sign would be destroyed. In this case, it would cease to be the Eucharist.

In the Sacrament of Marriage, the sign is not celebrated only at the ceremony. Even the vows and the paperwork do not embrace the entire sign of the Sacrament as though it was a once and for all, onetime occasion of grace. The sign of the Sacrament of Marriage is the sacred, committed, passionate, spiritual, emotional and physical love between husband and wife which is an occasion of grace for the couple and for all who come under their loving influence. During the vows, bride and groom publicly describe and dedicate this love, making it for the first time sacramental. The sacrament, however, persists throughout their entire life together, for better or worse, making Christ's passionate covenant love for his bride, the Church, present to us in their love. If that love between husband and wife tragically dies, the sign value is lost as much as the eucharistic presence is lost when the sacred species turns to mold. In this case, how can all the pomp and ceremony of years past, the videos and paperwork as well, substitute for the sign of the sacrament? Without the committed love which brings a couple through difficult, even seemingly loveless times, the Sacrament is dead and gone.

In this article, as sometimes in the Gospels as well, we have not come to a perfectly airtight and inescapable conclusion. If we had, all Christian denominations would be unanimous in their interpretation of Mark 10: 1- 12. In the very same chapter of St. Mark, however, Jesus continues to shock his audience by announcing that people had to become like children, the least significant members of the society of his day, to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Verses 13-16) The wonder of the crowd grows as he then proclaims that it would be less of a challenge to cram a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man, the most blessed and significant member of the society of his day, to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Verses 17-25) The question posed in response by his disciples might well be our question as we try to sort out the mind and heart of Jesus on the complex issue of divorce in which so much is at stake - our very salvation. It is a question, in view of the fact that there is no clear cut, 100% sure fire answer, that must be asked. " Then who can be saved?" Jesus fixed his gaze on them and said, "For man it is impossible, but not with God. With God, all things are possible." (Verses 26-27)