A deafening silence

Twenty-five years ago, when it was clear that Archbishop Michael Gonzi would be replaced, there was a lot of debate about the subject.

In the forefront of the process of consultation there was the clergy's association, Christus Rex. Among other things it organised a type of questionnaire which it circulated among its members asking them to express their opinion about the qualities that the new archbishop should have.

Christus Rex did more than that. It also gave its members the possibility to name names. These were not published but were sent to the Vatican for its consideration. Christus Rex was not alone. Several others wrote about and publicly discussed the subject.

That was 25 years ago. Today all sectors of secular society consider consultation to be a right and, as a result, generally, there is more consultation.

But exactly the opposite process is happening in the Church, at least regarding the choice of the successor of the present Archbishop, Mgr Joseph Mercieca, who will tender his resignation in November when he celebrates his 75th birthday.

Irony of ironies, the strong consultation lobby that existed in the archdiocese 25 years ago has evaporated into thin air. Instead of discussions, reflections and different kinds of consultation, this important period in the life of the archdiocese is characterised by a deafening silence. Few seem to care.

Why is this happening? There can be many reasons. I venture to propose a few.

The Maltese show interest in decisions that they believe will somehow affect their lives. The great interest most of us showed during the election of the leadership of the MLP is a recent example.

Is the lack of interest among the Maltese in who will be the next Archbishop a sign that the Church is becoming less relevant in people's lives? Or could it be that the Church is still relevant but that the prevalent model of the Church present in people's minds is still a patriarchal, clerical and top-to-bottom one?

Is this lack of interest an indication that the belief in the Church as the People of God whose members share a basic dignity and, as such, should actively participate in its life just a pious textbook hope?

A positive answer to any of these questions would be a very negative sign indeed for the Church.

It is a pity that today grassroots advocacy groups inside the Maltese Church are non-existent. Christus Rex had been dead and buried for many years. No other lay or clerical association took its place.

In the past 25 years there was what I call a process of privatisation. For several reasons many people (I am also including pastoral operators, particularly priests) abandoned the ecclesial public sphere and retreated into their own private spaces.

These ecclesial private spaces take the form of one's lay movement, parish or some other area of work or personal interest. This is a space where pastoral operators feel that they are in control, and where they feel at home and welcomed.

In these spaces pastoral operators feel that they can express their opinions and be listened to. Over the years the ecclesial public sphere came to be more and more perceived as the locus of frustration since public opinion is many times ignored.

These pastoral operators say that experience showed them that this space is beyond their influence. The creation of a forum of public opinion is perceived to be a futile endeavor. These pastoral operators mention examples of the holding of pseudo-consultations when the people "consulted" knew (through other channels) that decisions had already been taken.

It is for this reason that many people say that they do not believe that any process of consultation about the characteristics of the new Archbishop will have no effect on the outcome of the decision that will be taken.

This perception of defective consultations - I will not go here into its validity or otherwise - also shows that we are in a very sorry state.

This is a pity, since Church teaching on the subject encourages the opposite direction: from privately expressed to publicly manifested opinions. In 1950 Pius XII had said: "Something would be lacking in her (i.e. the Church's) life if she has no public opinion. Both pastors of souls and lay people would be to blame for this."

The Pastoral Instruction Communio et Progressio (1971) says: "Since the Church is a living body, she needs public opinion in order to sustain a giving and taking between her members. Without this, she cannot advance in thought and action." (para. 115)

In the following paragraph Communio et Progressio says: "Catholics should be fully aware of the real freedom to speak their minds which stems from a 'feeling for the Faith' and from love." And in paragraph 119 we find: "The development of public opinion within the Church is essential."

Since the Church believes all this and much more about public opinion, it is the duty - a moral if not a canonical one - of all, according to their status, to try to foment a period of consultation that will help Church authorities choose the right person for the ministry of Archbishop.

It is not right for many to say that they are in favour of consultations but then do nothing as they do not have a strict canonical duty to do anything. Such lip service to the process of creating a healthy public opinion sphere within the Church gets us nowhere.

In the article I wrote last year (The Sunday Times, May 19, 2002) I had suggested that the Diocesan Synod should hold a special session to discuss the subject. It seems that those responsible for the Synod's agenda thought that the Synod was too busy with the formulation of the policy which would bind the next Archbishop for it to have time to discuss what qualities or characteristics he should have.

In the Archdiocese of Milan the Senate of Priests and the Pastoral Council initiated a process of consultation to map out the desired characteristics for the successor of Cardinal Martini. If that was possible in Milan, why is it not possible in Malta?

As I have written, grassroots advocacy groups are now extinct in our archdiocese. This places a great responsibility on the Curia. Cannot the Curia commission its research institute to organise this consultation? This institute is capable of designing and executing a carefully though out research strategy - most probably qualitative techniques would be the best to use for such a task - that will give us the desired identity kit of the person to follow Mgr Mercieca.

This research should also, but in a very confidential manner - as happened 25 years ago - be able to forward the names that people think are more suitable.

While the debate about characteristics should be as public as possible, the proposals of names should be treated with the strictest confidentiality. Characteristics should be published but names should not be.

I think that a special duty for the creation of a strong public opinion forum on this topic lies on the shoulders of those who manage the Church media. Church media should provide such a service to the Church by provoking an intelligent and healthy debate. Such is their duty.

Am I hoping against hope when I lobby for all this to happen? Is the process of privatisation I referred to so entrenched in our mentality that we have passed the point of no return? Will there be a situation where all energy is concentrated on lip service to the idea at the expense of concrete actions? I pray that this will not be the case.