aka – The Maltese Fiasco
Earlier today I had a great misfortune to read a statement from the Bishops of Malta which is a complete disaster. I was going to post about it tomorrow, but canonist Ed Peters beat me to it and… he nails it with his usual amazing skill. For the document in the official English version supplied by the Bishops of Malta from their website: HERE
Peters doesn’t have a combox, but I do… and the moderation queue is ON.
The Maltese disaster
The bishops of Malta, in a document that can only be called disastrous, repeatedly invoking Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia,have directly approved divorced and remarried Catholics taking holy Communion provided they feel “at peace with God”. [As he said… disaster.] Unlike, say, the Argentine document on Amoris which, one could argue, left just enough room for an orthodox reading, however widely it also left the doors open for abuse by others, the Maltese bishops in their document come straight out and say it: holy Communion is for any Catholic who feels “at peace with God” and the Church’s ministers may not say No to such requests. [Did you get that?] In my view the Maltese bishops have effectively invited the Catholics entrusted to them (lay faithful and clergy alike!) to commit a number of objectively gravely evil acts. That their document was, moreover, published in L’Osservatore Romano, exacerbates matters for it deprives Vatican representatives of the ‘plausible deniability’ that they could have claimed (and might soon enough wish they could claim), as it becomes known that the Maltese bishops went beyond what even Amoris, if interpreted narrowly, seemed to permit.
For now, I make just a few points.
1. The Maltese bishops have fallen completely for the canonically and ecclesiologically false view that an individual’s assessment of his or her own readiness to receive holy Communion (see c. 916) controls a minister’s decision to administer the sacrament (see c. 915). In Malta now, anyone who approaches for the sacraments should be recognized as being “at peace with God”. Objective evidence to the contrary is simply no longer relevant. Canon 916 is thus eviscerated, Canon 915 is effectively repudiated. [These bishops are in serious danger of eternal perdition because of what they have done.]
2. The Maltese bishops do not seem to know what the word “conjugal” means. They think that non-married people can practice “conjugal” virtues and that they can decide about whether to engage in “conjugal” acts. Nonsense and, coming from bishops, inexcusable nonsense at that. Non-married people can have sex, of course, but Catholic pastoral integrity does not hold such sexual acts on par with the physically identical, but truly conjugal, acts as performed by married persons.
3. The Maltese bishops, by extending their document to the sacrament of Reconciliation, have basically instructed their priests not to withhold absolution from a divorced-and-remarried Catholics who refuse to repent of their “public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384) even to the point of abstaining from sexual (nb: sexual not “conjugal”) relations. Incredibly, such a directive raises the specter of green-lighting sacrilegious confessions and the commission of solicitation in confession. No priest should want either on his conscience, let alone both. [No bishop in the world could compel me to do that. I hope the priests of Malta do not imperil their souls.]
4. The Maltese bishops even managed to take swipes at Baptism and Confirmation by opening the door to divorced-and-remarried Catholics serving as godparents contrary to the expectations of Canon 874 § 1, 3º. See CLSA New Comm (2001) 1062-1063.
There are other serious problems with the Maltese document but the above should suffice to show why it is, quite simply, a disaster.
If you read that rubbish document, note the juxtaposition of “situations” and “ideals”.
This is going to turn into a war if not worse. Different countries different practices.
What will become of the unity of the Church if in one country any unrepentant sinner with the official blessing of the bishop and, when you cross the border into another country, you still need a firm purpose of amendment to be absolved and public scandal must be avoided.
Does that sound like two different Churches?
UPDATE 14 January:
My friend Fr. Martin Fox, a frequent commentator here, has observations at his blog Bonfire of the Vanities.