Pope Francis, as this date, has seen
the end of the gathering of bishops for a “conference” called the Synod of the
Family. The stated purpose was to
formulate appropriate pastoral guidelines for the pastoral care of the person
and the family covering a diverse collection of issues such as marriage, more
positive statements of Church doctrine, Gay Catholics, decentralization of
Church authority, and women. Pope Francis called for this synod for the concrete
purpose of ….what? This is what had and
still has the conservatives in the Catholic Church on edge.
There has been considerable reports of
the innumerable skullduggery committed among the factions of the bishops at the
Synod. I am not conversant with all the
ins and outs of Vatican politics—so I’ll leave that be. But
the outlines of the Synod itself are of interest.
During a “pre-synod synod” (A
preparatory session of the synod held in 2014 to set the stage for the larger
2015 assembly), the Pope made some suggestive comments while a few
documents written by liberal conference members were leaked to the
press. These indicated some fundamental,
practical changes in Church doctrine coming down to pike. Whether these were fair weathervanes of what
was to transpire may not be determined for years to come.
One of the purposes of the Synod was to put in place how to
bring homosexuals closer into the heart of the Church without much of the "exclusionary
language” (“intrinsically disordered” being one such phrase) which had produced
intense discomfort gays experienced in the past. As one member (unidentified) put it, “Catholics
"are our children. They are family members. They are not outsiders. They
are our flesh and blood. How do we speak about them [positively] and offer a
hand of welcome?" It would appear
to this Lutheran that in the end pretty much standard boilerplate was applied
stating that gays should be drawn closer to into the Catholic community and
their “gifts” were needed and should be generously accepted. The bottom line is that the Synod set forth
the goals without reckoning how to get there.
In any event, the subject of homosexuals and the Church
pretty much fell to the wayside for (in a sense) a more contentious matter:
pastoral care for the divorced and remarried, acceptance to some degree for the
divorced and remarried among the fold, and opening the Eucharist to those who
has failed to conform to the Church’s teaching on the permanence and indissolubility
of the sacrament of marriage.
The Pope himself had made some noises signaling that he had
some openness to changing Catholic practice and admit the divorced and
remarried to the sacrament. (One might
presume following repentance and shouldering some form of penitence.) First, he said that the Church's doctrine on
marriage was not going to be changed, and that the previous assembly of the
Synod did not propose changing it. Secondly, he warned his brother bishops not to
"reduce their horizons” into a single yes or no vote on whether divorced
and remarried Catholics can be readmitted to the Eucharist. In all fairness, these “noises” were
vague. Nevertheless, both the Pope and
most bishops have a great deal of sympathy for those Catholics who were
divorced through no fault of their own by the other partner in the marriage against
their own wishes.
As one might imagine, the
liberal faction of the Church have long favored extensive reforms which would
allow the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist. More to the point, they wanted a loosening
of Catholic doctrine to reflect the reality of widespread divorce in the modern
world. The Church’s teaching on the permanence
and in dissolubility of the sacrament of marriage would remain, but the
admission to the Eucharist would be left to the discernment of the local priest
under the guidance of the bishop. German
Archbishop Heiner Koch said that
most people he spoke to understood the admittance of remarried Catholics to the
Eucharist as matter of charity and mercy, not of the indissolubility of
marriage. Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Australia 65% of
bishops were opposed to allowing remarried Catholics to the sacrament, with 35%
in favor.] Regarding allowing individual bishops
conferences to determine their own pastoral practice with regard to divorced
and remarried Catholics, Coleridge said he believed that proposal had closer to
50% support. In general, bishops in the
west (where Rome is experiencing severe loses in membership) were more likely
to support these changes while the African Bishops (where the Church’s greatest
growth is taking place) were almost uniformly against it.
Officially, the Synod changed nothing. However, as with Vatican II, liberals are
already talking about the “spirit of the Synod”. Conservatives fear that the Pope will act on
his own (the Pope is never bound to the consensus of the bishops) and institute
reforms from his office. However these
reforms might be dressed up, the practical effect would be the abandonment of
the doctrine of marital indissolubility. Further, this would set the stage for an eminent
“civil war” within the Catholic Church which would lead to eventual
schism. Whether all this talk of the “spirit of the
Synod” would prove influential and a Papal unilateral action will take place is
something only future years can tell.
Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say the Synod has set up grounds for
profound conflict with the Catholic communion.
Up until the mid-twentieth
century, Lutheran teaching closely resembled that of the Catholic Church. While Lutherans did not hold that marriage
was a sacrament, they did believe marriage was basically indissoluble and
divorce was not acceptable. While
divorce’s presence among the laity did become more common, it remained a disgrace
for many years and remains so to this day to some degree. Individual Lutherans still do not readily
talk about their own divorces among the fellowship. It is a subject of shame rather than a normal
happenstance of modern life casually discussed.
In any event, the Eucharist
is rarely if ever denied to the divorced in the Lutheran Church. It isn’t a vital issue. One is
far more likely to be denied communion because one the “proper” Lutheran
belonging to the right Lutheran denomination.
Still, one has to
wonder. However much we like to
sugarcoat it, divorce is a scandal in the Lutheran Church. Divorce rates are the same as those in the
general culture. We are supposed to be
different and the fact we are not is not lost on the general public. It is
another fact in the public perception that we are a bunch of hypocrites who do
not follow the precepts of our own religion.
They are well aware of what Jesus had to say about divorce and while
they don’t take Christ’s instructions seriously for themselves, as they see it,
we are deliberately ignoring Him when it suits our purpose.
Are they right?
We Lutherans have long
been taught not to be judgmental toward those who have gone through
divorce. We are to greet them with
charity, sympathy, and understanding. I
would not have it any other way. Still, we
have muted Jesus’ instruction so that the divorced will not be made
uncomfortable and guilty whenever we speak of it. On the whole, I hardly think most enter
divorce lightly; however all too many consider divorce just one of life’s unwelcome
but inescapable tragedies. It’s
normal. It happens. It’s even a positive good in many circumstances.
In spite of Jesus’ teaching, we’ve even convinced ourselves this conventional
wisdom is essentially true.
I don’t know quite what to
do about this state of affairs. Some
will object that someone else’s divorce is hardly my business and, besides,
their divorce has no impact on my marriage.
I am not convinced that is
true. I am certainly not convinced that
is true for the marriages of others.
What I am convinced of is that long term studies have shown that divorce
has a serious lasting impact on children.
This is not the place to go into the details of all the observed deleterious
effects divorce has on children even well into their adulthood; but they exist
and are all too common. It’s not just for some children but for almost
all. This has define bearing on the
social ecology we all live in. Divorce
is not benign.
When others speak of their
divorce, we should extend our understanding and love. It is just that, perhaps, we are just a
little too quick to understand.
