Catholic Replies
Q. I believe the Pope has the authority to remove any bishop/cardinal from his posting; a bishop has the authority to remove any priest in his diocese from that priest’s posting. If that is not true, please correct me. If it is true, then please explain the following: There are numerous examples of cardinals, bishops, and priests today, who implicitly (and oftentimes explicitly) deny some aspect of Catholic doctrine. Why, why, are these people allowed to stay in their positions to keep leading people away from the truth? — T.S., Minnesota.
A. There have been some bishops and priests who have been removed from their posts in recent years, but there are far too many who continue to undermine Catholic teaching, and nothing is done about it. See the following reply for a particularly egregious example. We need to pray for the Holy Father and for the bishops that they will remove or silence those who scandalize the faithful with their heterodox opinions.
Q. A recent op-ed article in The Pilot, the archdiocesan newspaper in Boston, expressed the hope that those bishops attending the upcoming Synod on the Family in Rome “will put aside their fears about change and respond with common sense to the plight of our brothers and sisters” who are divorced and remarried and unable to receive the Holy Eucharist. Would you please comment on some of the things said by this pastor of two parishes in the archdiocese? — Name Withheld, Massachusetts.
A. We have in the past commented several times on the heterodox opinions of this particular priest, which were expressed in his parish bulletins, and we even complained to our regional bishop after this pastor, in a column on the Feast of the Holy Family, said that we need to “applaud the virtues of family living wherever we find them: two-parent families, single-parent families, blended families, families with two mommies or two daddies, and adoptive families.”
The bishop was likewise disturbed by this column and promised to bring it up at the next meeting of his fellow diocesan bishops, but nothing was said or done as far as we know.
Eighteen months later, this pastor was transferred to a two-parish collaborative in another town, but apparently he is no more faithful to Church teaching now than before. The problem has been exacerbated, however, since he has been given the opportunity to state his views to the much wider readership of The Pilot, rather than just those in a parish.
The Pilot would never be confused with The Wanderer, to be sure, but shouldn’t the Catholics of Boston expect to find the Church’s clear teachings in the pages of their diocesan paper, instead of an opinion piece that undermines Church teachings? Here are some examples of his objectionable comments:
Comment: He said that George Weigel “gives voice to the traditionalists within the Church who fear that the teachings of the Church will fall like a house of cards if we begin to tinker with something like allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Though they don’t say so in so many words, they effectively believe that divorced and remarried Catholics should be punished for their failed marriages and for seeking happiness with a new spouse.
“They cling to the notion that all second marriages (without the benefits of annulments) result in adulterous unions which make the reception of Holy Communion sacrilegious in total disregard of the many years of marital faithfulness that husbands and wives in second marriages may have experienced.”
Reply: It is not just “traditionalists” within the Church who oppose adulterous unions and sacrilegious Communions, it is Jesus Himself, St. Paul, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In chapter 10 of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus said: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” St. Paul said that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27), and the Catechism says that “sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist” (n. 2120).
We are not aware of any place in the Bible or in the Catechism where it says that faithfulness in second marriages excuses adultery. And this pastor doesn’t stop at second marriages, for he said later in the column that it would be “wonderful if we could welcome people in second or third marriages to join us at the Eucharistic table, if they so desire!” How about fourth or fifth marriages? When does the notion of faithfulness become suspect?
Comment: The pastor said that “it is ludicrous to assert that divorced couples who have found love and fidelity with new spouses are still recognized by the Church as being married to their former spouses after the passage of many years. It is equally untenable (and disrespectful) to try to convince these happily married couples [including the ones on their third marriage?] that, in fact, their relationships are sinful.”
Reply: So was Jesus being “disrespectful” when He said that marriage was forever, that “what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Matt. 19:6)? Was it untenable for St. Paul to say: “To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband — and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband — and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10-11)?
Didn’t these husbands and wives promise on their wedding day to be faithful to each other until death? If they were sincere in making this vow, then divorce and remarriage are out. If some essential element of marriage was absent that day, then one of the spouses can apply for a decree of nullity, which is not that difficult to obtain these days.
Comment: The pastor also said that “the Church’s current prohibition regarding the reception of Holy Communion by divorced and remarried couples would seem to be at odds with the consistent teaching of the Gospel about love, forgiveness, and mercy. When the young man asks Jesus, ‘How many times must I forgive my brother?’ he says not seven times, but I say 77 times.”
Reply: First of all, Jesus said that if we truly love Him, we will keep His Commandments (cf. John 15:10), presumably including the Commandment against adultery. Second, Jesus was merciful and very willing to forgive sinners, but He also commanded them, e.g., the woman caught in adultery, to “sin no more” (John 8:11). He didn’t say that it was all right for the woman to continue living in adultery, but rather that she was to stop committing that sin. And notice that the Lord called adultery a “sin,” as He did in chapter 7 of Mark’s Gospel when He listed adultery among a catalogue of “evils” that “come from within and they defile” a person.
Comment: “So where does all this leave us today?” the pastor asked. “Among the givens, we know that many divorced and remarried Catholics have left the practice of their faith precisely because the official teaching of the Church makes them feel unwelcome. Some have gone to other churches, but many more have just simply walked away and not reconnected anywhere. Our hearts should go out to these folks. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Pope Francis finds enough support at the Synod to do something dramatic about these difficult situations?”
Reply: But it’s not just the official teaching of the Church; it’s the official and unchanging teaching of Jesus, the Founder of the Church, who gave the Church the authority to teach the truth in His name. Of course, our hearts go out to anyone whose sinful lifestyle has separated them from the Church (this writer has children in such a situation), but is the answer to change what the Church teaches, or to change the sinner?
The pastor in question, in this area, as well as regarding same-sex couples, seems more interested in being welcoming to those in sinful lifestyles than in calling them to holiness. But is letting someone remain in their sinful state the most pastoral solution? Or should a true pastor invite sinners, which includes all of us, to “repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15)?
