St John the Baptist gave his life in the defense of marriage. The German bishops, by coming out in favor of Cardinal Kasper’s proposals on divorced and remarried Catholics, took the side of Herod. In effect, they concluded that St. John’s position was too antagonistic and decided to issue a letter of congratulations to Herod upon marrying his brother’s wife. While some might think this comparison hyperbolic, it is nonetheless what their recent statements regarding the divorced and remarried come down to. Rather than being a witness to the indissolubility of marriage and what it means to sin against it (making it a further sin to receive Communion in that state), they have embraced a false kind of mercy, believing that one must follow current fashion.
Anyone who doubts this assessment need only consult the pastoral directives issued by the German bishops’ conference on December 22, 2014. They say that the exclusion of the divorced and remarried from the sacraments was “no longer comprehensible,” even to many priests who therefore disregard Church directives, and that it is a “test of the Church’s credibility” to many faithful (p. 47, 59). Re-admission to the sacraments should therefore be permitted in individual, specifically delineated cases. Most of the 66 German bishops are in agreement, though there are some exceptions like bishop Oster from Passau.
The bishops’ conference had put these directives together in June in preparation for the synod on the family, but had decided to wait until the first half was over before publishing it. It characterizes in detail and with great empathy the difficulties many divorced and remarried couples face. It also explains in large measure the doctrine of the Church with insight and clarity, especially when summarizing Familiaris Consortio. Yet when arguing for the admission of the divorced and remarried, confusion abounds in the directives (which are, by the way, quite similar to those issued by the diocese of Freiburg in October 2013 that Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, severely criticized). Since the Church’s position is perceived by many in Germany to be unmerciful (p. 47, 60), the illogical conclusion the bishops draw is that the Church needs to change its rulings—instead of explaining what real mercy means and why the Church does not fail in it by continuing to proclaim the divine life-giving laws regarding marriage, the Eucharist and confession. That this means not admitting those in a state of permanent adultery (as the bishops themselves affirm about those among the divorced and remarried whose first marriage is valid) to the sacraments is opaque to them though they should know better.
St Paul’s famous passages in 1 Corinthians that say whoever receives the Eucharist unworthily brings judgment upon himself are nowhere mentioned in the bishops’ directives (1 Cor 11:27 & 29). Real mercy would require warning people of the spiritual death they are incurring by receiving the Eucharist when in a state of grave sin. Instead, the text adds more confusion to the mix: if Christ shared meals with tax collectors and prostitutes, should we not allow the divorced and remarried to receive Communion as well (66)? That Christ was simply sharing a meal with the former, but not giving them the Eucharist, is ignored. Yes, the divorced and remarried need grace to change their ways, like everybody else. Therefore, attending mass, going to adoration, and leading a life of prayer are essential and should be encouraged. A new pastoral should look at ways to encourage this. That they feel “unreconciled” by not being allowed to receive Communion is something that the bishops bemoan (58). In reality, this should be seen as a healthy reminder to the divorced and remarried that they are, in fact, unreconciled, that they should long for reconciliation, and pray that God will give them the grace to change.
