Here on the anniversary of Pope Francis (happy anniversary, Holy Father!) there is growing speculation that there may be some change in the pastoral approach to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. One only need glance at national newspapers and on-line sources here in the United States to know that it is a topic that is continually asked of Bishops.  And there is a context for the interviewer’s question. Last month the Cardinals of the Catholic Church met in Rome for a meeting on family life in our times. Pope Francis invited Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany to give the opening remarks for the gathering. The Pope’s choice of Cardinal Kasper was enough to begin the speculation. While the opening speech will be published later this March (in German and Italian), there have been many reports regarding the content of the talk.

On March 10^th Cardinal Walter Kasper gave an interview to Vatican Radio about the speech’s content. The Cardinal said that in its approach to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, the Catholic Church needs to find a middle ground that does not destroy or abandon doctrine, but offers a “renewed” interpretation of church teaching in order to help those whose marriages have failed. “I propose a path that goes beyond strictness and leniency,” an approach that avoids the two extremes “isn’t against morality, it isn’t against doctrine, but rather, [is meant] to support a realistic application of doctrine to the current situation of the great majority of people and to contribute to people’s happiness.”

During the last month there has been much speculation as to possible “paths” that include a revised marriage annulment process, a more lenient remarriage policy, Eucharistic reception for divorced and remarried Catholic under certain conditions, and others. The speculation is only limited by human imagination. During the same period there have been many polls of Catholics regarding this area. Not surprisingly, polls in western Catholic countries reveal a Catholic faithful open to change; polls elsewhere, e.g., sub-Saharan Africa, are far less open to changes in this area. Here in the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Bishop Lynch open up the Vatican survey to people of the diocese. You can see the results here.

I thought it might be helpful to use this space to add some context to the question regarding Eucharistic reception by Catholics who are in second marriages, having been previously divorced, and then who remarried outside the church. It is assumed these folks were uninformed about the “external forum” of the annulment process, or were unable or unwilling to participate in the process for any variety of reasons; some good, some not so much. As well, these folks might be people who did use the external forum of the marriage tribunal but were told that their first marriage remained valid in the eyes of the Church – and  yet having been in their second marriage many years and hold the firm conviction that it is this second marriage that comprises what God intended for marriage. As a “group” these marriage are often referred to as “irregular marriages” in the scholarly and pastoral journals that comment and reflect upon these canonical and pastoral questions and dilemmas.  For brevity’s sake I will broadly use the expression “irregular marriages” to refer to the such marriages.  No bias or disrespect is intended.

Eucharist for folks in irregular marriages is a serious and pervasive pastoral problem that faces these good folks and parish priests alike. Perhaps the paradigm that most perplexes the Christifidelis in these irregular marriages is that they are

“encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace.” (Pope John Paul II, On the Family (Familiaris Consortio): Papal Exhortation, December 15, 1981 (Washington DC: USCC, 1982). )

They are invited to participate fully in the Body of Christ except as it pertains to the sacraments, notably Eucharist. For many of the faithful, it is a liminal moment that is sometimes resolved by following Church teaching, but often by either self-admission to the Eucharistic table, resolution in some form of internal forum, or leaving the Church for an ecclesial community that welcomes them into Eucharistic communion.

You might ask what my goal is for this undertaking. An impetus for such an undertaking is that there is so much materials floating out on the internet that makes assertions in “black and white” language. The thing about assertions is that they are sometimes true, and sometimes not. A parishioner with an interest in this discussion brought me a printout from a well-known Catholic commentator and author who is noted for his thorough grounding on things of the faith. There was one line that offered folks in irregular marriage could be allowed Eucharist on the basis of mercy. This author asserted that the Church has already attended to that argument and rejected it because it has never been the practice of the church, not consistent with the Gospel, and all bishops agree. Let me say such assertions are really not the norm for that writer.

But such are the things that get me to muse about things and to think about a goal. My goal is to provide a context for the discussion that may well be coming. There is an old adage that every text needs a context, lest it become a pretext for what someone wanted to say in the first place. If the Church intends to explore the “path that goes beyond strictness and leniency,” we folks on the sidelines need a context – or so it seems to me. I don’t expected news agencies will provide such context. So, I thought I would give it a try.

Perhaps I am pushing out into waters too deep for me. Perhaps. Wouldn’t be the first time. I will do what I can, but please take it all as just one voice. I give no guarantee that that the posts that come will be whole, complete, or anything approaching the last words on this topic. But at the end, I hope there will at least be context.

And that is a start.