Proposing An Order for Our Penitence

Much of the discussion since last October in anticipation of the synod to be held this fall has centered on resisting perceived attempts to overturn Catholic doctrine on marriage, responding to the proposals of Cardinal Kasper and supporters to admit to communion the divorced and remarried (without a declaration of nullity of the prior marriage). This discussion reached a similar terminus at a synod in the 1980s, which occasioned St. John Paul II’s of the famous Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio and his endorsing a restatement of Catholic practice: the divorced and civilly-remarried cannot be admitted to Holy Communion without a decree of annulment, living together without sexual relations, or separating from their second spouse. In both cases, then and now, the pastoral approach has remained virtually the same.

A recent proposal by Swiss Dominican theologian Fr. Thomas Michelet offers a creative yet deeply traditional solution to the impasse of dealing pastorally with the divorced and remarried in a way consist with the sacrament desires and life of the Church.

For decades, the pastoral response of the Church to this situation has been unsatisfying to many for various reasons. Those who disagree with the Church’s position on the indissolubility of marriage, or on the understanding of the sacraments, cannot be helped, and it is likely nothing will please them until doctrine is overturned. That, frankly, will not happen. Others are merely dissatisfied with the very limited availability of options for truly pastoral responses and not with the doctrine except indirectly; many pastors fall in this camp, as one would expect. It is genuinely difficult to face a couple wanting to participate in the life of the Church, but who, before rediscovering their faith, made a bad decision to divorce and remarry. That decision, while wrong, was not known to be so at the time and has now resulted in children and a home life that can’t be dissolved by fiat. They might even have grounds for doubting whether the prior marriage was valid at all, but don’t want to engage in the annulment process for various good reasons. Nor is it easy to ask them to refrain from relations with their spouse. The only option for them has been to attend Mass without going to communion or to remain unable to go to confession, awaiting some change in their marital state. That seems partial at best.

While there have been attempts to propose new solutions that remain within the bounds of doctrine, such as a more efficient annulment process, Fr. Michelet’s recent article in the French journal Nova et Vetera sheds a new and powerful light on the problem. Michelet suggests the revival of the ordo poenitentium—the “order of penitents.” This “order” was part of the penitential discipline of the ancient Church, which involved a person confessing their sins (probably privately to either a priest or bishop) and then receiving a public penance. They consequently spent months or, more commonly, years doing public penance (fasting, etc.). They sat in separate places in the church building, oftentimes not allowed to enter beyond the narthex of the church. Only intermittently in a year were some reconciled and absolved. This system, presumably because of its harshness, faded with the rise of private confession, which led to a more merciful and discreet system.

For Fr. Michelet, the revived practice of the ordo poenitentium would not be the harsh system of the fourth century, but an analogous practice in light of the need for ecclesial support and mercy for those living estranged from the Church. Instead of a system designed for those who had converted and decided to leave their irregular situation, it would provide an opportunity for support and evangelization to facilitate conversion at the appropriate time. The “order” visibly illustrates, too, that the divorced are not excommunicated or cut off from the Church by their act; they remain baptized people whom the Church longs to see fully participating in her sacramental life. The divorced would thus participate in the Mass without communion, but now, as a member of the ordo, also with public prayer and support. That the divorced should remain connected and persevere in prayer and good works has been a constant theme since Familiaris Consortio, and even at the same synod in 1983 there were attempts to suggest this kind of ordo as a further step. This ordo would thus be a gradual attempt to educate and support those estranged from the Church, allowing them a participation in her general life to include public prayer. In that way, their state would mirror the catechumenate. The ultimate goal of the ordo would be individual absolution at some time after a penitent’s situation had been resolved.

Fr. Michelet’s proposal would have to be part of a more comprehensive attempt by the Church to reach out to the estranged, providing better catechesis on the nature of marriage and helping people learn more about the annulment process. Some difficulties would nevertheless have to be addressed concerning the exact nature of the process itself. The “inquiry” period before joining such a group, for example, would have to be carefully constructed so as not to cause further insult. Similarly, the question of how public such a process ought to be would need to be addressed. The divorced should not be singled out and made to reveal themselves before the whole congregation. Perhaps the ordo could involve a private process with the priest, and a recognition for public prayer only on larger feast days (e.g., Easter). Incorporating other people into the process, such as those struggling with addictions, might allow the possibility that the group would not be identified exclusively with “divorcees.” The process would also have to address reconciliation more concretely. Some couples have, in fact, decided to forgo sexual relations and could be absolved without being a part of the ordo. Or, a couple might be reconciled and then fall back into sin. The process needs to be appropriately private and flexible in these cases.

The chief problem that a revival of the ordo addresses is that the Church offers little in the way of public support for the divorced and remarried. They form a silent cohort of people in a parish that cannot be involved in its life. This is compounded by the modern (problematic) Eucharistic practice of many parishes where all are quasi-obligated to proceed to the altar and communicate. While Michelet’s solution will not solve the problem at root—the existence of a prior marriage—it will help to provide those in the situation a social andspiritual support and give the local pastor an avenue to address the problem. This is not to be sneered at, as I think it provides the best chance to evangelize precisely those who need it most.

The doctrine of the Church on marriage cannot be changed, but we can control how we pastorally support and approach the divorced. The face of God is one of mercy, as Pope Francis has often said, and such a step might bespeak it more clearly to the world; “let [them] come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matt. 19:14).