The hierarchy of the Maltese Church has not distinguished itself in terms of clarity over the past few weeks. It has lurched from one incomplete and perhaps unsatisfactory position to another over the issue of who should or should not receive Holy Communion and under what circumstances.

The fuse for this confusion was lit after a rather straightforward, though misquoted, statement by Fr George Dalli, who said on television that he would be abusing his position if he refused to administer Holy Communion to a particular cohabiting couple. Simple enough one might think.

However, after a debate ensued over the misquote ('I am prepared to administer Communion to cohabiting couples'), Malta's bishops felt the need to step into the fray. Cohabiting couples, they said, should not receive Communion.

Rather than clear matters, this statement sowed further doubts in the minds of the faithful who were immediately asking three pertinent questions: one, is it for the priest or the individual to decide whether a person should receive Communion? Two, why was this blanket statement made without being accompanied by a detailed explanation? And why did they choose to focus only on cohabiting couples and not, say, thieves, adulterers, blasphemers, murderers, etc, etc?

As people started to digest their statement, a fourth question reared its head: were the bishops correct?

The Didache, one of the earliest Christian texts, would seem to suggest there is room for manoeuvre. It states: "Having come together on the Lord's Day, you are to break bread and give thanks, after you have confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice might be undefiled. But anyone who is estranged from his friend should not join us until both have been reconciled, lest your sacrifice be polluted."

And in comments to The Sunday Times last week, Fr Brendan Gatt, a canon lawyer, added much needed flesh to the bishops' statement, saying a priest can only refuse to administer Communion in "extreme" circumstances which did not include cases involving cohabiting couples or divorcees. He added that it was for individuals to decide whether they are fit to present themselves for Communion.

The position seemed clear, until later that day when the Bishop of Gozo again made a blanket statement, saying: "If one is behaving in a way which in itself is a form of moral disorder, even if the person in question, subjectively, has reasons that excuse him or her or reduce guilt, he still cannot receive Holy Communion because this would scandalise others." This put many people back in confused territory again.

Fr Gatt, writing in simple yet eloquent terms below, once again puts forward a more conditional position, saying that if priests know a couple are cohabiting, they could find a suitable moment to engage in dialogue with them which would hopefully "help form their conscience" (in the right way) and enable them to understand that, as a general rule, their situation precludes them from receiving Communion. It will also enlighten them, he says - again avoiding categorical language - about the "risk" of causing scandal.

Fr Gatt's seems to be a most reasoned position, though we lack the competence to judge whether it is the right one. We need to know.

However, two ancillary points emerge from this debate which we can comment upon: One, if the Church is to exercise its right to preach and teach, it should do so in a coordinated and considered manner; two, it should only discuss such delicate and nuanced subjects in appropriate forums where there is not the din of an audience to prevent proper exposition.

That way, confusion could be more easily avoided.