Parties should agree about how EU issue should be decided - Archbishop's adviser

The Archbishop's adviser on the European Union, Fr Vanni Xuereb, believes politicians in Malta should at least reach agreement on how the EU issue should be decided. Talking to Steve Mallia, Fr Xuereb says that in their 1999 declaration, the bishops had said in effect that the referendum was a good thing and he defends the local Church's approach to the debate.

Does the local Church keep abreast of what is going on with regard to Malta's membership or non-membership of the EU?

I follow what is going on in the negotiations and the implications for the various sectors. I report to the bishops and point out issues which I feel are of particular interest to them. Sometimes they also ask me for my opinion.

Does your opinion count with them?

Yes. Very much so. If the archbishop is about to issue a pastoral letter and talk about the EU, he will call me in and ask me for advice and my comments. And he does take them into consideration.

How do you view the EU as an issue in Malta?

We've been saying it ad nauseam, but the issue is one that is highly politicised. This means that the politicians have left practically no room for any other organisation - be it the Church or an NGO - to enter the debate.

The problem is that the moment something is said that can be interpreted one way or the other, it is used and manipulated in favour of not just one side, but in favour of one side against the other. This creates a situation which does not make it easy for the Church to even mention the term EU at times.

We are trying to be a little more bold about it...

Since when has it been more bold?

It's significant that both political parties are present at the Convention on the Future of Europe.

That has already made it much easier for the Church to feel that it is not in any way going to be seen to be taking the side of one party or the other, so in that sense I think it is easier for us to talk about the future of Europe, what kind of Europe we Christians envisage, what are the good and bad points of the EU, etc.

We should spend more time discussing the issue of what sort of Europe we want to have than be concerned with who is going to win the partisan political arguments.

Shouldn't the Church, as the only unifying factor in the country, be filling the void you are talking about?

The bishops recently sent an open letter to the leaders of the political parties where they invited them to seek some form of consensus - not necessarily agreeing on the question of membership - but at least to try and agree on what there can be agreement on.

The seriousness of the situation in this country is that we even have a problem of how we are going to decide this issue - is it going to be a referendum or a general election? Are we asking too much of our leaders to say, 'listen, let's at least agree on the modalities of how we are going to take this decision'.

Isn't this approach unrealistic?

We should not give up. There have been occasions in the past - take the pre-1987 situation: who would have imagined it would have been settled? But there was give-and-take and a compromise was reached...

Why at least not get our act together on what we want to achieve, whether we pursue membership or partnership, and see what we can get out of the EU.

The counter argument is that on one side you are negotiating membership and on the other side you are not negotiating anything because there will only be negotiations on the MLP's proposal if they are returned to government. It has been stated that the Commission does not negotiate with anyone else.

Do you understand what the MLP's proposal is?

The kind of agreements the Labour Party is proposing do exist on community level... The Labour Party has said it has no problem having an agreement which forms part of the Euro-Med process. There are models on which one could rely to see what kind of partnership this could be. But then it's all subject to negotiations.

You can say what you want, but then it's up to negotiation to see what the final agreement is going to be...

How can you make up your mind in favour or against if you don't even know what has resulted from the negotiations? That's the problem we have in this country.

If there is a lack of debate on the issues of a future of Europe, shouldn't the Church be taking a leading role in discussing them?

Why not? The Church has already, through the Commission for the Bishops' Conferences of the EU - COMECE, issued a statement which it has presented to the Convention on the Future of Europe spelling out its views.

I don't think the bishops in Malta would have any difficulty aligning themselves with the bishops in Europe. After all, their principles emanate directly from Catholic social teaching.

Is the EU just a political question?

Fundamentally, the question of whether to become a member or not is a political one, taken by the people - whether that is in a referendum or general election - so it is difficult to envisage any guidance the Church can give other than that which it has already given.

There have already been a number of statements by the bishops...

Ambiguous statements...

Well, ambiguous and not. If you take the 1999 declaration by the bishops... there were specific calls made to the politicians to allow people with specific knowledge and opinions to contribute - not to label a person this or that because he has expressed an opinion.

Isn't this idealistic?

Idealistic and not... why hasn't this been taken up...

Even the question of values. The archbishop in his Lenten pastoral letter was quite clear about it; that the question of values is not what kind of relationship we are going to have with Europe but it is a question of how we Maltese are willing to continue abiding by these values which we say we cherish.

Is the Church saying that EU membership does not affect values either way?

The Church is saying that whether it does or not is immaterial because the question of values is our question.

Take the question of divorce, for instance. I think of the challenge Christians would face to maintain marriage without the current legal protection.

Will EU membership bring divorce?

With the rules as they are now, the answer is clearly no. Malta will not be obliged to legislate in favour of divorce or abortion by virtue of becoming a member of the EU. It is not part of obligations we would have to assume if we became members. It is quite clear.

The COMECE declaration of November, 2001, recommended that Episcopal Conferences should start a process of dialogue with their respective governments on the question of Europe. Did this happen in Malta?

There is this process going on whereby the Catholic Churches are trying to give an input into what should be the future of Europe and I am quite confident that the Church in Malta will take up that invitation.

There may be a possibility that some time in the future the Maltese bishops would feel the need to express their views directly to people in the political spheres. But it is not something that is happening as a structured process at the moment.

The bishops issued a relatively mild Lenten pastoral letter and then within two months came out with a very strongly worded open letter to the politicians that was completely different in nature. Why the change of approach?

A pastoral letter in itself is not addressed to politicians. It is the bishops' message to the people, so its nature is different.

Yet the two bishops made strong speeches on the feast of Christ the King...

But that is different. You have the President, the prime minister and members of both sides of the House - so the archbishop is indirectly addressing them too.

One of the most significant statements in the open letter was that Malta had much to lose if it presented itself to Europe as a divided nation. Reading between the lines, were they telling the opposition to change its approach?

I didn't interpret it that way. The point was that divergence is part of the political process, but we should not be ridiculous in our divergence.

The issue is now: are we going to agree on whether to become members or not, but how credible are we? European Parliament president Pat Cox said that we should give the EU a position that is final. 'Don't come back to us one month later and say you have changed your minds'.

I think this is where our credibility is at stake. It's not a question of whether we should join or not, but we have to appear to have taken the decision in an authoritative way in a process which is democratic and one that lends itself to producing a result that truly reflects the will of the people.

Now even that is in doubt here. What will happen? A referendum will be held. The opposition is already saying that the referendum only binds the government that organises it....

Do you think that's the correct approach by the opposition?

I think that in their 1999 declaration on relations between Malta and the EU, the bishops pronounced themselves on the question of a referendum: they said it is a good thing that the people will be given an opportunity to express their views on this particular issue.

On the legal issue of whether it is binding or not...

It is clear that legally it is not binding. But is it morally binding?

As I said, in the 1999 declaration the bishops said that holding a referendum is a good thing. I quote: 'We note the commitment of the government to let citizens have the last word in a referendum on whether Malta should join the EU or not. This is a good thing'.

I stand by what they say.

You think it ought to be something that ought to be respected by either side?

Are we asking too much? Isn't it possible to achieve some sort of agreement on a method and how that method is going to take place?

How credible is such a decision going to be when we go and present it to others? You have a decision which the opposition is saying it will not recognise as a binding decision of the Maltese people. That's the difficulty. I don't know how to solve it!

But the politicians should have the sense, as the bishops wrote, to resolve the situation for the good of the whole nation. This is one case that calls for the national interest to come first.

The prime minister has been very forceful in the way he has spoken on the approach of the local Church to the EU debate. How does the Church view his overt pressure?

He's a politician who is trying to do his job. The bishops take their responsibilities seriously. They take decisions after consideration, consultation and prayer as well.

Do you think the prime minister should be putting on that sort of pressure?

I think one has to respect the decisions the archbishop takes... Decisions ultimately rest with the person who has the responsibility, be it in the Church or a political party. The archbishop has responsibility for the Church and his decision should be respected.

The most recent COMECE statement was unequivocally supportive of the concept of European integration. Malta is an associate member. Isn't the document committing the local Church in favour of EU membership?

First of all, the document is not issued by the bishops themselves but by the secretariat of COMECE. And it is the initial document prepared by the secretariat - so at no point was the archbishop asked to sign or give his approval.

The section you are referring to is actually a statement made by the Pope to European Parliamentarians in 1993. So the document is quoting the Pope and I don't think that we in Malta have any difficulty with what the Pope states.

The Pope went on to say that the expansion of the EU should continue to be a priority and he sees the unification of Europe through enlargement as a historically essential step to allow Europe to breathe with two lungs. Again, how can the local bishops reconcile a position that is neutral on the question of membership with this?

One has to look at the historical context as well, where the Pope has been insisting since his election in 1978 on a Europe that breathes with two lungs - and by that he means west and east. So, for the Pope, the question of enlargement is obviously directed towards the Central and Eastern European countries... which he wants to see fully integrated within Europe.

The Pope and the bishops do speak favourably of the process of European integration even in this particular project which is the European Union.

But it is not an uncritical ratification of whatever takes place.

Are the local bishops doing enough to reiterate the position the Pope has stated?

What the Pope has stated presents no difficulties. He is not saying that Malta should become a member of the EU or that it should not. Even the prudence he exercised when he was in Malta last year is a clear sign that he believes that the decision is up to the Maltese.

Was there pressure on him to exercise this prudence?

I don't think the Pope would be in any way pressured. I think he is fully aware of the situation in Malta.

Who informs him?

The archbishop has regular meetings with the Pope. The Vatican secretary of state through the Apostolic Nuncio is aware of the situation and I think the Pope knows the situation of the local Church here and fully understands and respects the position the local bishops are taking - otherwise he would have mentioned the issue here as he has done in other places. The fact he did not is a sign that he understands and respects the situation.

What do you think parish priests should do if their flock ask them for EU-related advice?

More often or not, nobody is going to ask the parish priest about his opinion on such matters.

I think people need to understand that the Church is primarily a pastoral operator - not a political actor.

We have people who trust us and feel we can be of help, and in no way do I as a priest want to endanger that by taking a position which one could perhaps even say the Church is justified in taking. This would be far more detrimental than any good we could possibly do by pronouncing ourselves on various issues.

Is it acceptable for the Church to be afraid to interfere?

Let's be realistic. We still feel at grassroots level the repercussions of the scars of the past (MLP-Church) conflict that have not yet healed...

Why is there such an interest to have the Church speak or not speak? What are the motivations behind that? Let's just hope they are genuine motivations.

What do you think are the motivations?

Understandably the Church has a strong influence in this country. So obviously what it says or does not say counts as it can influence the way people arrive at a decision on certain matters - which is why we have such a responsibility to take things seriously.