Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/780138
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2017 10 Opinion T his week, a particular headline in the 'Times of Malta' caught my eye. Actually, it seems to have caught the eye of several people around the world: including prominent theologians, doctors of the Church, and at least one Cardinal somewhere (Brazil, I think). I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pope Francis himself gave it a nod, too. It does, after all, concern him rather closely. "Priests 'confused ' over bishops' new guidelines", the headline ran. And I must say, they're not the only ones to be scratching their heads in bewilderment at the moment. I am still trying to wrap mine around why such a spectacularly mundane bit of local news would cause such devastating shockwaves around the globe. From Latin America to Eastern Europe, from Detroit to the Far Antipodes, all you could hear was the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth I mean: 'Maltese priests discovered plotting to overthrow the Vatican, and bring about the Eternal Dominion of Satan'... that I'd sort of understand. But: 'Maltese priests don't really understand a complicated instruction manual '? Come on, cut them some slack. That happens to all of us all the time... whenever we click 'I accept' to terms and conditions we haven't actually read. It couldn't be a more boring news item if it tried. But no matter: this otherwise unremarkable announcement has indeed set the entire planet in a f lutter. Edward Peters – a consultant to the Holy See's top tribunal, the Apostolic Signatura, and professor of canon law at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary of the Archdiocese of Detroit (phew!) – called the Maltese criteria "a disaster". New York priest Gerald E. Murray, writing in The Catholic Thing, termed it 'the Maltese meltdown'. I'm half waiting for an editorial in The Daily Prophet announcing the imminent destruction of our entire island by The Twelve Plagues of Egypt. (In fact I might slaughter a sheep and daub my doorway with its blood, just in case). Who the heck wouldn't be confused? Had I any idea that Maltese priests were so globally inf luential, that their opinions on the smallest things could actually bring about the spontaneous combustion of the entire Cosmos... why, I'd be paying the utmost attention to every single darn word they ever utter. I'd have my antennae up on a permanent basis for any subliminal message they might ever impart, even in their sleep. After all, the survival of Planet Earth may hinge on a single thought in one of their minds. We might be missing it right now... But then, you stop to think about it a little and realise that... hang on, wait... yes, this is indeed very puzzling to say the least. Not as earth-shattering as some seem to think, perhaps. But there is undeniably something here that doesn't seem to quite add up. What puzzled Maltese priests so much in that article, it seems, was a set of guidelines published by the Maltese Bishops on the issue of divorcees receiving the Sacraments. Now: I hasten to add that, as an outsider looking in, it is none of my business how or to whom the Maltese bishops should choose to administer or not administer their own Church 's Sacraments. After all, it's how we all used to play football in the streets as children: 'My ball, my rules, if you don't like it, don't play'. Fair enough, we can all get that. What interests me, however, is the cause of the confusion itself. The guidelines were based on Pope Francis' Amoris Laetitia. Bishops Scicluna and Grech interpret Chapter 8 of that document to signif y that "divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion and act as godparents if they feel at peace with God after a process of ref lection." On my part, I'd say that sounds reasonable enough; but for reasons outlined above my opinion hardly counts. The interesting thing is that it really is quite perfectly the opposite of what the Church (admittedly under at least one different Bishop) had repeatedly told us for years, if not decades. As recently as the 2011 divorce referendum, this was in fact one of the fiercest bones of contention. The Head of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (whose view in the matter is, by definition, relevant) had reminded us that divorcees were under no circumstances to receive Holy Communion; and that this was 'God 's law', which not even the Bishops could overrule. During the visit of Pope Benedict in 2010, the Church had invited bitter criticism for writing to VIPs and asking them not to bring their cohabiting partners to the Pontifical Mass. It was, in a word, a very big deal. And while I might welcome the change of heart myself, even I struggle to comprehend a volte-face of such... well, Biblical proportions. I feel like Jonah in the belly of the whale: the sheer enormity of it has simply swallowed me whole. Even that, however, is not the only confusing thing. Consider the criticism that has come from so many parts of the Catholic world. The aforementioned Fr Murray writes: 'The Church is not in the business of supplying get-out-of-jail-free cards to people who violate God 's law and then search for excuses why that law does not apply to them in their particular cases. To do so is to treat God 's law on marriage, or any other matter, as merely a suggestion, subject to personal ratification before becoming obligatory." Sounds a lot like the argument raised by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal head I mentioned earlier... and similar arguments were made all over the Catholic world. Admittedly, not always directly at the Maltese Bishops' guidelines... which were, after all, only an interpretation of something written by the Pope. Pope Francis, that is. For other Popes have pronounced equally contrasting views before him. Pope John Paul II, for instance, held with Murray, Peters and all who agree with them. He wrote 'Familiaris Consortia', which lays down that: erm, no, actually, remarried divorcees can't receive Holy Communion. And anyone who says otherwise is telling porkies... Yet both were written by Popes: both of whom, presumably, wield exactly the same institutional authority over the precise interpretation of God 's will. What's there not to be confused about in that? It has almost become a question of 'which Pope will pop?' They can't both be right, can they? Or wait... maybe they can. Who knows? In the realm of parallel universes, any permutation of reality may become possible. If Schrodinger's cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, I fail to see why people shouldn't be able to both receive and not receive a Sacrament simultaneously. So how about this for a solution to the dilemma? Both views are, indeed, correct; individual priests can choose whom to administer or not to administer Holy Communion; people are free to go to whichever individual priest they prefer. And... well, that's it, really. Confusion resolved. Man, I just love swinging in and out from nowhere and fixing other people's problems for them like that. So if you're ever confused about anything, just give me a shout... Raphael Vassallo As an outsider looking in, it is none of my business how or to whom the Maltese bishops should choose to administer or not administer their own Church's Sacraments Confused? Fear not, comfort is nigh...