Bergoglio’s smile that attracts so many crowds sometimes fades away within the Vatican corridors; his readiness to open has in fact given rise to bad humour and internal opposition, which for the moment is being obstructed by the powerful media and the popular wide consensus that the Holy Father enjoys. The thrust forward entails a Church that returns to its people, his idea of including even those who have committed wrong, staying aloof from certain powers- from refusal to carry the cross of gold to the refusal to live in Santa Marta, a former hospital for patients suffering from cholera –these are but some of the deomonstrations. They do in fact represent a radical change in the manner of conceiving the doctrine of the Church.
And the debate is now open on divorcees who have remarried, with an effort to giving a clear response consistent and credible with the modern challenges faced by every household in all hemispheres around the world; an attempt to breach the gap that has arisen between how the Catholic faith conceives marriage and the actual behaviour of its followers, definitely represents one of the toughest challenges to overcome. Quite a thorny situation for millions of people, a vulnus in discussion at any latitude. But if the gap between the Church and the ordinary daily life of its faithful are coming out into the open, very little is known of the existing tensions within the Curia.
The ongoing issue is not to be underestimated. The reason behind the dispute – which has also given rise to bad tempers and stron positions held within the upper echelons of the Vatican – concerns the very essence of Catholicism: the Lord’s Supper. This is what Pope Bergoglio’s ‘opening up to’ is all about-which is now the central point of talk in the Synod – compared to the theories of Cardinal Walter Kasper which are explained in the opening speech of the consistory in February 2014; whereby in front of his audience, Cardinal Kasper had examined case by case, the possibility for divorcees and remarried persons to take holy communion again, on the basis of certain conditions. The conservative barrage within the church is very obvious in an essay – “Remain in the truth of Christ”-signed by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller ( head of former Holy Office from 2012) alongwith four other cardinals: Raymond Leo Burke (prefect of the Apostolic Signatura), the distinguished Walter Brandmuller and Velasio De Paolis, and the Italian Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna.
The latter, however, was quick to clarify, at the right moment during the Synod, that “it would be slanderous to claim that I’m against the Pope, I’d rather hear say that the Archbishop of Bologna has a secret lover rather than having to go against the Pope.” The issue is still open however: “the Pope has never spoken about this –said Archbishop Caffarra to the press agencies – but when He spoke, He asked for a debate. And a debate is real only when all voices have a say “.
What was meant by “all voices” was that there are the sinatories of only 5 Cardinals on the essay. The essay also contains the positions expressed by Cardinal Angelo Scola as well as those of the “Minister of economy” of the Vatican, George Pell, all basically against the opening put forward by Kasper.
The various opinions in the Synod are clear: on the one hand, the prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith and editor of the complete works of Joseph Ratzinger, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, who are unfavourable to readmitting divorcees and remarried people. On
the other hand, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, Walter who stands in favour.
Concerning the disputes amongst the cardinals, Pope Bergoglio has responded by saying that “throughout the history of the Church, there have been perhaps many similar situations, that our fathers have been able to overcome with perseverance and creativity?”. The Holy Father therefore, has shown no particular apprehension, at least publicly. but his changes announced at the various episcopal conferences in the Ior, in practice, and now regarding the new discussions on the doctrine, is a slap in the face to a certain type of orthodoxy that refuses to move ahead and to change, but wants to stay as one and forever eternal.
Translation provided by Marina Stronati
