Reuters told us last Monday that Pope Francis asked the cardinals, bishops and others participating in the Synod of the Family currently being held at the Vatican to stop bickering. The Free Dictionary says that ‘bickering’ means “to engage in a petty, bad-tempered quarrel; squabble”.

I had followed the public debate which preceded the Synod particularly the different positions on whether those who are divorced and remarried without annulment could under certain restricted conditions receive communion.

At times the debate was intense but it never reached the low level of bickering. Besides, the Pope did not say anything which could justify the Reuters heading.

In fact the Pope, at the inaugural homily of the Synod, asked for more and not for less debate.

His only condition was that the Synod Fathers should not refrain from saying anything even if they thought that he would not be happy. They are not there to please the Pope but to discern the best way forward for the Church.

Straight talking and active listening are Francis’s only commands.

Compared to this openness I am sorely disappointed that the interventions of the different speakers are not being published as they have always been. Christians have the right to be informed about these interventions.

Holding an hour-long daily press conference to give an extensive synthesis of what is being said without putting faces to words is not an adequate alternative.

Fortunately, there were bishops who published their contributions or who spoke to the media about the proceedings.

Our own Bishop Mario Grech did just that last Wednesday. His was a very good speech which like many others tried to strike a balance between the different aspects of the dilemma. Fidelity to the Gospel’s message and to the needs of its followers are both a must.

The teaching about the indissolubility of marriage is a most valid contribution of the Gospel to culture in general and to families in particular. This is not negotiable.

During the Synod’s discussions the use of language and the law of ‘graduality’ are considered as great help in striking a balance.

Many Synod members emphasised the need to discover the language that should be used to communicate the Gospel message in such a way that it respects the real situation in which many people find themselves in, warts and all.

This is not just a question about semantics or being politically correct. Far from it. It implies, as Bishop Grech said, “the sustained pursuit of new answers alongside new pastoral approaches”.

The question of language is intimately tied to the law of ‘graduality’ or the discovery of the long and tortuous path that each one of us, hopefully accompanied by the Church, moves along in one’s desire to live to the full the Christian ideal guided by one’s formed and informed conscience.

Bishop Grech said that such forms of accompaniment have to be developed for each person and added:

“Such resources of accompaniment should not exhaust themselves by merely declaring such and such a situation to be ‘irregular’ and therefore to be treated as ‘irreversible’ without having a clear mind about the ways in which these brothers and sisters of ours may mature towards full communion.”

The adoption of the right language for the communication of the faith and of empathic accompaniment of each individual as part of his gradual progression towards the full splendour of the Gospel are very difficult tasks that face the Synod and the Church. Quite naturally having the right attitude for possible openness and development of teaching helps.

Just before the beginning of the Synod I read an interview with Cardinal Walter Kasper and another one with Cardinal Raymond Burke.

Burke comes across as someone who closes all doors. His position pre-empts the desire for an open discussion at the Synod. He already knows that the answer is no.

Kasper, on the other hand, is what the Italians call ‘un possibilista’. He thinks outside the box in an attempt to help those who can be helped. While strongly asserting the indissolubility of marriage he recognises there can be a lot of value in the unions formed by the divorced and remarried and strives to see whether, in some cases that go beyond decisions taken in conscience because of particular circumstances, Church accompaniment can include the reception of communion.

I agree with Burke, however, that it would be much better if this issue is resolved during the present session of the Synod instead of being adjourned until next year.

Too many people are getting the wrong impression that the Church is contemplating allowing all divorced and remarried or those living together without being married to receive communion as if there is no problem with such unions. Such a blanket position has never been on anybody’s cards.

Too many people are getting the wrong impression that the Church is contemplating allowing all divorced to receive communion as if there is no problem

One important difference between this Synod and that of 1980 regards the attitude towards the process used by the Church to declare that a marriage was never valid. In 1980 the US bishops were under attack as they were accused of undermining the judicial process by giving annulments too freely.

Today, on the contrary, it is the current annulment process that is under criticism for being too complicated and legalistic.

Cardinal Péter Erdő, the General Relator of the Synod, in his opening address said there is “a rather broad consensus in favour of simplifying marriage cases from the pastoral view”.

While a short while ago the Pope was pilloried by conservative quarters for quoting someone saying that many Church marriages are invalid; today Erdő said that “It does not seem hazardous to believe that many marriages celebrated in the church may be invalid”. The Pope recently set up a commission to report on possible ways of streamlining the process. Besides the simplification of the process Cardinal Erdő also raised the possibility of an administrative process, as opposed to the current judicial process, to determine invalidity, a process that “could conclude with a declaration of nullity by the diocesan bishop”.

The adoption of a more streamlined process would definitively help many. But this should not pre-empt a decision whether the Catholic Church should adopt the Orthodox practice of blessing a second union which does not have the status of a sacramental marriage but permits one to receive communion if the person involved repents of any contribution to the breakup of the first marriage.

All in all it seems that during the first week of the Synod there was a lot of straight talking.

But most probably Catholics will have to wait for next year’s Synod to get straight answers to the problems that confront them.