FORMAZZJONI U INFORMAZZJONI
MILL-KUMMISSJONI TEOLOĠIKA (3)
16 ta’ Marzu 2012
Wara l-materjal li ntbagħat fl-aħħar ġimgħat dwar il-pastorali mad-divorzjati li
għaddew għal żwieġ ieħor, huwa f’waqtu li nifhmu pożizzjoni differenti – dik li
ppropona Paul De Clerck, saċerdot Franċiż u professur tat-teoloġija pastorali u
tal-liturġija fl-Institut Catholique ta’ Pariġi. Huwa importanti li nisimgħu qanpiena
oħra, biex imbagħad nagħmlu l-konklużjonijiet tagħna.

Paul De Clerck, “Reconciliation for divorced and remarried believers”, in
Theology Digest 49 (2002) 217-225.
The main points in the article:
(a) De Clerck commences his article by referring to the practice in the
Orthodox Church which allows a second (possibly a third) marriage
“according to the economy” – a marriage which embraces a penitential
dimension. With regard to remarried divorcees, the author reminds us that
the teaching of the Catholic Church affirms the objective contradiction
between divine law and the situation they have entered through a second
marriage (p.217).
(b) De Clerck then proceeds to mention three well-known solutions advocated
by the Church to remarried divorcees: i. to investigate whether their first
marriage is null through recourse to the ecclesiastical tribunals; ii. to
discontinue the second relationship, although this has its problems
because there can be obligations to children born from that relationship; iii.
when the second union is maintained, the spouses are invited to live in
continence because their sexual relationship is adulterous (p.218a-b).
1
(c) The author states that the canonical discipline of the Church rules out “any
positive consideration of the second union” (p.218c) on account of the fact
that the latter undermines the indissolubility of the first marriage. He holds
that for remarried divorcees, their second union offers hope after the pain
of a previous break-up, but this hope is tarnished because the Church
considers the second union scandalous and sinful. He notes what, in his
opinion, is the contradiction between invited remarried divorcees to the
celebration of the Mass, insisting with them that they are not
excommunicated, and then not permitting them to receive the Eucharist
(p.218d). He also observes that different priests act differently – some
admitted remarried divorcees to the sacraments, while others stick to
Church law – saying that this lack of uniformity gives rise to injustices
(p.219a).
(d) De Clerck then contends that while the Church underlines the sinfulness
of the life of remarried divorcees (this constituting an ongoing adulterous
relationship), there are many other equally sinful situations (e.g. the
production and the sale of armaments, unjust economic or political
practices, the exploitation of the poor) where sacramental reconciliation is
possible. He insists that all these cases, including an ongoing adulterous
relationship in the case of remarried divorcees, are lasting and public in
nature. Positively, he quotes Bishop Léonard who correctly insists that all
in these long-term cases, the sinful situation must be remedied before
reconciliation, which means that the Church is not distinguishing between
two sets of serious sins (p.219b-c).
(e) The personalist emphasis with regard to marriage is then treated (p.220a)
by De Clerck. The intention of the spouses is “a lifetime of committed love
and the permanence of the conjugal bond is still extremely important”
(p.220a). Yet, there are cases when although the spouses’ intention was a
lifelong marriage bond, their relationship experiences destruction. Durwell
talks of an “indissoluble but destructible marriage” (p.220b). Other authors
2
talk of the “death of the first bond”, accompanied by a sense of anguish,
failure and bitterness, and the multiple consequences from this situation.
De Clerck voices the sentiments experienced by Christian believers in
these situations. He states that while the personalist dimension remains
central to the Christian theology of marriage, these individuals suffer
because the Church continues to insist upon an essentialist concept of
marriage and reiterates the permanence of their first bond, when they
have re-experienced love and hope in a second union. Their intention is to
overcome the failure of their first marriage, and, they say that instead the
Church tells them to return to the “suffering and death” of their previous
marriage (p.220c). De Clerck asks what, to him, is an important question:
“In this situation the partners should be able to acknowledge their failure
and perhaps the sin which is its origin, but could the Church not also
integrate recognition of the failure of a marriage?” (p.220c)
(f) De Clerck then proceeds to reflect upon the history of the sacrament of
Penance. He refers to the reintegration of the lapsi into the Church after
they repented of the serious sin of apostasy. He also talks of the ancient
practice of “public” penance when for the very serious sins of apostasy,
adultery and murder, individuals were not considered to be full members
of the community any longer, and they were officially declared “penitents”,
undergoing a somewhat lengthy period of public penance. Reconciliation
took place when they were re-accepted by the bishop on Holy Thursday,
in preparation for the celebration of Easter (p.221a). This whole process
entailed a sense of spiritual pilgrimage, the embracing of a particular
status (that of a penitent), and an emphasis on the connection between
God’s mercy and ecclesial relationships (p.221b-c).
(g) The author of the article raises a number of issues: i. a loss of the
ecclesial sense of the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation; ii. in the
case of remarried divorcees, can one a priori rule out the existence of
contrition?; iii. what about divorcees who have not remarried? Is their any
3
possibility of reconciliation with God and the Church if they are truly
contrite for the failure of their marriage? (p.221d); iv. the issue regarding
remarried divorcees should not be centred on whether or not they can
receive the Eucharist, but on how the sacrament of Reconciliation should
come into the picture (p.222a).
(h) De Clerck affirms that a first step is to stop identifying “failure with fault or
sin” (p.222a). He reminds that failure can be inculpable, and he gives the
example of manslaughter (which is distinct from murder). Now, he argues,
if a person’s physical death can, in certain cases, be inculpable, why is
inculpability not applicable “for less violent acts”, such as the failure of
marriage? (p.222b)
(i) The Church is a community of pardoned sinners. At the very centre of the
life and experience of the early community, the first believers
acknowledged the reality of failure or infidelity to the Lord, but they were
also cognizant of the fact that the Lord could “transform failure into life”
(p.222c). Basing himself on the truly ecclesial nature of reconciliation, De
Clerck then proceeds to propose the sacrament of Reconciliation to
divorced and remarried believers. He affirms that this “proposal notes a
serious failure in their personal existence in connection with a public and
ecclesial commitment on the day of their marriage; this failure may in part
be connected with sin” (p.223a). The author is insisting that the focus to
be made is not on the subsequent second union, but rather on the failure
of the first. He insists that the Church is to offer its sacramental healing to
the believer who has fallen short of his/her original commitment (p.223b).
De Clerck holds that for those whose marriage has failed, “their status
would be that of Christians who are temporarily no longer in full
communion with the Church and who should therefore no longer receive
communion. Moving beyond this temporary situation would be done with
Church support and would issue in the sacrament of Reconciliation, the
sign of God’s mercy, which also reestablishes Christians in ecclesial
4
communion and thereby reopens eucharistic communion to them. The
possible involvement in a second union should be evaluated beginning
with their reconciled status and not exclusively with the breakup of the first
marriage” (p.223c). De Clerck proposes pastoral diocesan support in the
iter of this process (p.223d – p.224a). Discernment criteria are to be
included, while bearing in mind the fostering of sincere conversion,
children from the first union, the requirements of justice, the overcoming of
resentments, etc. (p.224b-c). Basing himself on the practices of the
ancient Church for “public penance”, De Clerck proposes a period when
the divorced individual embraces the “penitent status” when he/she is not
in full communion with the Church, followed by a sacramental act of
reconciliation with the Church during Holy Week or on Holy Thursday,
enabling him/her to receive the Eucharist on Easter Sunday (p.224c). He
concludes: “After this process, those who wish to enter a second marriage
should be able to celebrate it. For it would be illogical to admit them to the
eucharist, the most important sacrament of all, and to exclude them from
another sacrament” (p.224d).
(j) Paul De Clerck insists that room should be made for the reality of failure in
Christian life. He holds that those spouses who have failed in their
marriage are invited to undergo a process of conversion with regard to
that failure, and to be subsequently reconciled with the Christian
community (p.225a).
Reactions:
The position taken by Paul De Clerck is at the other end of the theological
spectrum from the clarifications made by the Holy See, as outlined in the
previous Information sheets, and as detailed below. Although De Clerck’s
intention is a pastorally inclusive one, the conclusions he reaches are,
theologically defective and very subjective. The proposals he makes – if put
5
into practice – would create confusion in the minds of the faithful with regard
to the indissolubility of the marriage bond.
One is struck by the fact that the author rarely underlines reconciliation with
God, as if only reconciliation with the Church were sufficient in true
conversion. He makes a one-sided emphasis on healing, which though
positive in itself, forgets that true contrition requires metanoia, literally a
change in direction, from a sinful situation. Metanoia asks for a healing
process of this situation, and not its ‘artificial’ cover-up, or pretending it does
not exist any longer. God is true to his word, and asks of his disciples to live a
life of fidelity to his word. Christians have always been called and are still
being called to radicality. Although the effort made by De Clerck in offering
pastoral solutions is to be appreciated in the way he presents his arguments
and opinions, nonetheless his conclusions are defective as the indissolubility
of marriage is undermined.
With regard to the mention he makes of the Orthodox Church allowing a
“second” marriage, he seems to be unaware that the Coptic Orthodox Church
does not permit this often-cited practice.

Pontifical Council for the Family, The Pastoral Care of the Divorced and
Remarried. New Recommendations and Pastoral Guidelines, January
1997 = Catholic International 8/5 (May 1997), pp.214-6.
(a) This document refers to Pope John Paul II’s address to the plenary
assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Family: “Let these ġdivorcedħ
men and women know that the Church loves them, that she is not far
from them and suffers because of their situation. The divorced and
6
remarried are and remain her members, because they have received
baptism and retain their Christian faith” (24.1.1997, n.2).
(b) The Church does not limit herself to condemn errors, but – as we read in
Familiaris Consortio 83 and 84 – she exhorts Christian communities to
support those who are in difficult marital situations, in particular, “those
who are suffering the hurtful consequences of divorce” (p.214d).
(c) The Church seeks: (1) to urge the whole community to show solidarity to
those of its members in such painful situations; (2) to show trust in God’s
law and the teaching of the Church; (3) to promote the virtue of mercy
which respects the truth of marriage; (4) to engender a spirit of hope; (5)
to provide adequate formation to priests and lay ministers entrusted with
the pastoral care of families; (6) to promote the value of Christian
marriage and conjugal life through three objectives – fidelity, supporting
families in difficulty, and through spiritual guidance; (7) to help the
separated and the divorced who are alone to remain faithful to the duties
of marriage; (8) to encourage liturgical prayer for those undergoing
difficulties in marriage.
(d) Special care is to be shown to the children of the separated and the
divorced, especially in catechesis.
(e) Ecclesiastical tribunals are to be seen more as part of the pastoral
dimension of the Church. Pastoral assistance is to be provided to those
who present their case before the tribunal.
(f) The pastoral guidelines presented by the Pontifical Council include these
challenging proposals: “invite the divorced involved in a new union to:
recognize their irregular situation, which involves a state of sin, and ask
God for the grace of true conversion; observe the elementary demands of
justice towards their spouse in the sacrament and their children; become
aware of their responsibilities in these unions; immediately begin to walk
towards Christ – who alone can put an end to this situation: though a
dialogue of faith with the new partner in order to advance together
7
towards the conversion required by baptism, and especially through
prayer and participation in liturgical celebrations, while not forgetting
however that, since they have divorced and remarried, they cannot
receive the sacraments of Penance or the Eucharist” (p.215d). The
Church is encouraged to “foster an adequate understanding of contrition
and spiritual healing, which also implies forgiveness of others, reparation,
and an effective commitment to serve one’s neighbour” (p.216).

Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, On Communion for Divorced and
Remarried Persons, 24.6.2000 = Bulletin tal-Arcidjocesi 105 (September
2000), pp.475-8.
The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in agreement with the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments, sought to offer further clarification concerning
remarried divorcees and the reception of the Eucharist. Difficulties arose with
regard to the proper interpretation of canon 915. The following aspects are to be
highlighted:
(a) “In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly
unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a
behaviour that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live
in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of
the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and
remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others
towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the
Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if
such behaviour, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is
precisely with respect to the deformation of conscience that it becomes
more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as
8
a protection to the sanctity of the sacraments and a defence of Christian
morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful” (p.476).
(b) The Declaration seeks to clarify the meaning of “the manifest character of
the situation of grave habitual sin” in the context of remarried divorcees.
The Declaration affirms that remarried divorcees “would not be
considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin when, not
being able, for serious motives – such as, e.g. the upbringing of their
children – to satisfy the obligation of separation, they assume the task of
living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses,
and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of
Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio
is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and
remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic
Communion only remoto scandalo (p.477, n.2c).
(c) N.3 of the Declaration concerns the instance of the public denial of Holy
Communion. Pastoral prudence highly recommends one to avoid such a
public denial. The spirit of canon 915 is to be explained by shepherds of
souls to those concerned, “in such a way that they would be able to
understand it or at least respect it” (p.477). It is only if after all the
precautionary measures have been taken and these did not achieve the
desired result, that the minister of Communion, with utmost charity must
refrain from distributing the Eucharist to those who are publicly unworthy
to receive it. Moreover, pastoral charity also demands that an opportune
moment is to be sought by the minister “to explain the reasons that
required the refusal” (p.477).
+++++++
9