In my commentary of November 24, I referred to the controversy between the Archdiocese of Freiburg and the head of the Vatican’s Congregation of Faith about the age-old debate on whether Catholics who are divorced and living in a second relationship should, under certain circumstances, be able to receive communion.

Since then, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the eight cardinals chosen by the Pope to advise him on the reform of the Roman Curia, Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, and Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli commented about the discussion.

I will explore further this controversy since it directly touches the lives of thousands in Malta. Besides, it also shows not only that the formulation of pastoral strategies can be controversial but also that a creative approach to age-old problems is, nevertheless, deemed by several to be possible.

The controversy was rekindled last September when the Office of Pastoral Care of the Archdiocese of Freiburg published a document entitled ‘Recommendations for Pastoral Ministry’. Freiburg is not just any other diocese.

It is headed by Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, who is also the chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference. In no way can the document be described as the religious/pastoral equivalent of the secular pre-Christmas sales. It strongly affirms, for example, the indissolubility of marriage and does not encourage divorced Catholics to remarry. But it opens an avenue most never dreamt could ever be opened.

Truth be said, it opens this avenue with many ifs and buts thrown in for prudent measure. It speaks of the possibility of receiving communion and other sacraments “under concrete situations” only after “a decision taken responsibly and according to one’s conscience” and “as long as the necessary faithful disposition is present.” The ifs and buts are also present in the document’s explanation of what “a decision taken responsibly and according to one’s conscience” implies.

These include the impossibility of returning to the first marriage partner, repentance for any guilt for the divorce and the entering into “a new moral responsibility” with the new partner. Only after fulfilling all these conditions can one celebrate the sacraments.

The reaction of Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was as immediate as it was negative. In a very long article published in a German newspaper and then reproduced in L’Osservatore Romano, he slammed the door opened by the Archdiocese of Freiburg by affirming that any Catholic who was divorced and remarried cannot receive communion without an annulment.

Müller said that the “entire sacramental economy” could not be swept aside by an “appeal to mercy”, adding that if remarried divorcees were “convinced in their conscience a previous marriage was invalid,” this should be “proved objectively” by a Church tribunal as required by canon law.

“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful, and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception,” stated Muller. One cannot be more assertive in one’s refutation (condemnation?) of what was proposed by the Archdiocese of Freiburg.

The Vatican supremo went further. On October 8, he wrote to Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, instructing him that the guidelines published by his archdiocese contained “unclear terminology” and violated Church teaching by suggesting remarried Catholics could take a “responsible decision in conscience” to receive sacraments after consulting their priest.

If Muller was expecting the adoption of an attitude akin to “since Rome had spoken, let no dog bark”, he was destined for dismay since barking there was, and aplenty too. Muller’s stand was criticised by none other than Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising, who said that Müller’s public position could not “end the discussion”.

Other indications that we have not reached the end of this story were given by Baldisseri. During an interview with La Stampa, he confirmed that the issue remains open as it will be discussed during the Synod “without any taboos”.

More German bishops came to the support of the Archbishop of Freiburg. According to reports in LifeSite News, Bishop Gebhard Fürst of Stuttgart, while strongly asserting that the indissolubility of marriage is “non-negotiable” for the Catholic Church, added that during their March meeting the German bishops are going to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion.

The position of Pope Francis on the issue is, quite naturally, of particular interest and importance. During his conversations with the press on the return flight to the Vatican from the Youth Day celebrations in Brazil, he said that couples who remarried after divorce could not receive communion.

Then he said three things that made some people hope for a change in discipline: he referred to the ‘different practice’ of the Orthodox who give a second chance; to his predecessors (in Buenos Aires) belief that half of marriages celebrated are null; and that this problem would be discussed in the council of the eight cardinals as well as during the Synod.

If no credible solution is offered, then we risk reliving the controversy on artificial contraception

He does not refer to the problem in his recent document – ‘The Joy of the Gospel’ – but there he does write that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak”.

And on top of that, he immediately adds: “These convictions have pastoral consequences that we are called to consider with prudence and boldness. Frequently, we act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators”.

Some considered those statements as possible added indicators for a way forward on top of those mentioned during the airborne press conference.

The positions of the above quoted German bishops and that of the head of the Vatican congregation (which is the traditional position of the Church) seem to be too far apart for a middle-of-the-road pastoral solution to be found. If this is the case, then we are faced with a problem you can only throw at it nice, compassionate words since no effective solution is possible. On the other hand, a number of German dioceses believe they found a solution. Are they all mistaken? And if a solution – beyond more nice words – is not possible, why put it on the agenda of the Synod?

If no credible solution is offered, then we risk reliving the controversy on artificial contraception. The faithful will find their own solutions; and will do this in droves. This is why sometimes I feel that on this issue the Church is really between a rock and a hard place.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt