Gozo Bishop Nikol Cauchi will celebrate his farewell Mass as the leader of the diocese tomorrow. But he still has a lot to say, as Steve Mallia found out.

What does it feel like to know now that you will be relinquishing control of a diocese you have been leading for almost 40 years?

There will be a total change in my lifestyle but the important thing is that I adapt to the circumstances and stay active. I am relieved, however, that I no longer have this responsibility on my shoulders.

What would you like to do?

Different things. There are media-related things, like printing some books and writing articles and to continue with my weekly radio programme on RTK and a bit of television here and there. I would also like to give talks in churches and at religious meetings. Apart from that I will have more time to engage in certain cultural activities and it goes without saying that as a priest I will have more time for personal prayer.

Do you see yourself interacting more on a priestly level now that you have more opportunity?

I don't think it was lacking during my time as the Bishop of Gozo since I had an open door policy at the Curia. But now I think it will be even easier for me to have these contacts. Perhaps I may dedicate some of my time to hear confessions as it is not something I had the opportunity to do as the diocesan bishop.

Does confession still play a relevant part in people's lives or is it outdated?

I don't think it's outdated. There are lots of people in other countries who visit psychologists and psychiatrists. Here people tend to seek out a priest. Quite often it will be just for some advice. Sometimes they just need a bit of encouragement. But confession is still required and I am surprised at how many young people ask for it.

When and how did you find out that you were no longer going to be in control of the diocese?

I formally asked the Holy See to release me on two occasions: when I turned 75 and I wrote to them again a year afterwards. Then, when I met Pope Benedict XVI last September, I mentioned it as well. He did not give me a direct response at the time but I think it was worth mentioning it as two months later the Apostolic Nuncio came to see me with the official letter naming my successor.

Did the formal letter about your resignation take you by surprise the day that it arrived?

Not at all. I was expecting it to come from one day to the next. Waiting for it was an awkward time as when you are in that state of limbo you can't plan anything - even when people were inviting me for functions I was telling them that it would depend on whether I am still the diocesan bishop or not.

Were you consulted in the process of your successor's selection?

It is routine that the bishop is consulted but that does not mean he dictates what takes place. One can draw up a list of three or more names and present it to the Holy See. That is the procedure.

Was he one of your preferred choices?

I don't think I can say any more than that.

Were you happy with the choice?

I accepted it with a certain satisfaction. I hoped my successor would be a Gozitan or at least someone who knows and understands our affairs at close quarters. The bishop has to have an idea of who is capable of helping him and obstructing him.

But were you pleased with the choice?

I have said openly that I received him with an open heart. I cannot say that I felt any disappointment. Absolutely not.

But were you happy?

Yes, but without excluding other people. If someone else had been selected I might have been happy as well. There were a few priests who had the right qualities to become bishop - some are here and some are abroad. I think that the person chosen is among them.

What were your major headaches in the diocese?

I think it can be summed up in one word: parochialism, and there is still some of that.

A little or a lot?

I think a lot of the problems that existed in parishes outside Victoria 30 years ago have been resolved. But when you have two parishes in one city a lot of attention must be paid to keep a balance. It would be a mistake - and perhaps one that I made - to engulf oneself in a small problem while failing to see the other large problems around, particularly social problems.

Did you feel the infighting in Victoria was a hindrance in dealing with other things?

It cost me a lot of time and energy. I always believed, and still believe, that with education and progress these things would gradually dissipate. But what I thought would happen in 30 years perhaps needs 40 or 50.

You became a bishop in 1967 and now it is obviously 2006. In that timethe world has changed a lot but the Church hasn't changed much. Do you agree?

Everything has changed. We cannot stop the clock and we cannot turn it back. Whether the Church kept up with the pace is another matter. No one would have imagined 30 years ago that the globalisation process would have reached this stage with its advantages and disadvantages - together with this monster that is poverty. The big change in the Church was Vatican Council II...

...that was 40 years ago.

But even the popes since then have said it still hasn't been fully realised.

But don't you feel that documents formulated 40 years ago at least need updating in 2006?

They are being updated through the synod of bishops which takes place every few years. And the popes since Vatican Council II have declared that various problems are important and urgent: such as peace between nations, poverty, progress of new nations, education, the poor conditions that various people find themselves in, human rights being eroded, conditions associated with birth control.

Most of those statements are uncontroversial, but very generic. When it comes to specific complicated issues, some people have asked why has the Church remained dogmatic - on euthanasia, for example.

First, even in its social doctrine, the Church does not provide concrete formulas but expresses instead principles on which one should proceed. At times it condemns specific things like Nazism and Communism and it has also encouraged the efforts of the UN to seek peace. But whoever expects the Church to find solutions to the world's problems is asking too much. Second, one must distinguish between those things that the Church has the power to change and matters in which it is just a guardian. When it comes to the law of God...

...but God didn't pronounce himself on euthanasia, contraception, women priests and other things.

Even there, there are the 10 Commandments and Christ's teachings, and the Church feels that it has a mandate to interpret and apply these laws. The fifth commandment simply states: Thou shalt not kill. But that means a thousand things.

But the interpretation depends on who the Pope is at that particular time, right?

The Pope at that particular time has to take care and ensure there is continuity. He studies new problems along with the cardinals and bishops who help him out.

Do you see the Church ever accepting issues like women priests or contraception, for example?

I don't think the Church will ever get to the point of accepting contraception...

...even though a lot of the people that frequent the churches use them.

That has nothing to do with it. The question of whether something is ethically acceptable or not does not depend on the number of people who do it or want to do it. For example, we know that children tell a lot of lies but it is still something intrinsically wrong.

So contraception is wrong even in countries like Africa and Brazil where people are dying of hunger and disease?

One cannot use a method that is ethically wrong to get a good result; the end does not justify the means.

Even if it's to overcome a greater evil.

Yes, even if it is to overcome a greater evil. The solution is not in using condoms so there is no AIDS, but it is research to find medicine to cure people and for education to reach such a level so that this disease is not spread.

Do you see a possibility that either abortion, euthanasia or divorce will be introduced in Malta in the foreseeable future?

We live in a democratic country and in democratic countries much depends on what people want and don't want. This doesn't mean that the majority always chooses what is right. What has happened in other Catholic countries can give us an idea of what may happen in our own country, however. I don't think that euthanasia and abortion - where the life of a human being is sacrificed - will be legal in this country in the foreseeable future because our people have a natural tendency to defend human life. But with regard to divorce, there are certain people who think that, if it is introduced, they will be in a position to solve one of their problems. Sooner or later there can be this shift as there has been in other countries.

Do you see it as a probability?

If one had to carry out a survey, I do not think the majority would be in favour of divorce but there are certainly a number of people who support it and the mass media are beating a drum on this subject. One can be upset about it and perhaps do everything to put it off as long as possible, but if you look at other countries you realise there is a danger of the probability increasing that it will come here as well. The later the better, but that's the trend. Of course, whoever holds the family to heart must do everything in his power to avert this danger.

Does that apply to the people running the country?

It applies not only to the people ruling the country, but also to the voters who elect them.

Would you say that vocations are worryingly on the drop?

While in Europe and the US vocations have dropped drastically, perhaps alarmingly, there are places where there are so many vocations that the seminaries cannot keep up. However, whoever thinks that vocations will come flooding in if the Church removes the celibacy requirement is under an illusion. Orientals and Protestant clerics may marry, but they don't have any more vocations than we do. One needs to look at the whole picture.

Why does the Church continue to deny women what some of them consider their right to be ordained?

Not all women consider it to be their right. There are different views... At the last bishops' synod that I attended, a senior nun said "we should not insist on being ordained if Christ said that it should be reserved for"...

...but some women do want that, yet the Church denies them it. Is this right?

The Church feels it cannot ordain women as priests but it can grant them many other things. For example, in apostolic times, there were deaconesses. Some tasks and functions that were done before by priests can today be carried out by laymen and women. The answer lies not in ordaining women but in giving them a greater role in the Church. In fact, today they can even take part in ecclesiastical tribunals as lawyers and they can be lecturers in Catholic universities.

Forty years ago when you became a bishop the Church used to be very vocal on a number of issues. As time has gone on it has virtually relegated itself to not saying anything, be it on the EU or racism. Hasn't the Church in Malta become too quiet?

There are some people who say it speaks too much and others who argue it says too little.

The general feeling at the moment is that the Church remains silent on too many issues.

It's obvious that on some issues prudence is required.

Has prudence been exercised way too much in the past 20 years?

I think there have been a lot of clear pronouncements. Archbishop Joseph Mercieca and myself have made statements on a number of points, even racism, but the problem is that people do not always listen to us and we can be the proverbial voice in the wilderness. If one had to collect the pronouncements of the Church on a number of subjects one would realise that we have pronouncements, even in the local context. Then when you have a pronouncement by the Pope, the highest authority, there is no need for the Bishop of Gozo to jump up and talk about it himself. It is enough for him to quote the Pope and deliver that message to whoever wants to listen.

Yet, in the 1960s the Church adopted a different strategy.

Not always. There were a lot of problems that the Church did not feel it should talk about.

But it was outspoken on a number of issues. That changed. In your opinion is that a good or bad thing?

I don't think there was any big change. The Church has always felt it has to be prudent in what it says and to think twice before it speaks - and that's why it is sometimes slow.

But in the 1960s it spoke on political issues. It stopped doing that.

It didn't. When there were the problems about the schools, it spoke out. When there was the problem of how Church property should be returned to the government, it spoke out. Now we are talking and writing about how people should relate with illegal immigrants. I fear that people often pass judgment on the Church - both internationally and locally - that is biased and not based on facts.

Recently you went on record as saying that sometimes when you preach in a church where half the people are asleep...

That was a joke and an exaggeration, but there are some people that are asleep - if not sleeping in the physical sense, not getting what you are saying.

Is this the fault of the priests or the audience?

I think the blame could be apportioned equally. We should not forget that people are sometimes tired, or have other things on their mind. It could be they are thinking about other problems and in that case no one is at fault. However, I don't approve of long sermons especially during Mass and one must do everything to talk in a language that people understand. Otherwise you may as well be preaching in Japanese.

Is this due to a lack of preparation?

Priests are not all the same. There are some that are dedicated to the preparation of their sermons and some who take things a bit lightly.

And what's the majority?

I have never carried out a census, but I think a lot of priests prepare though at the end of the day people do not all have the same capabilities. One may have a good memory and another who doesn't have the opportunity to prepare as he would wish.

Critics would say that since his election Pope Benedict XVI has been too quiet and certainly compared with his predecessor insignificant. Do you agree?

It's a matter of style. The two popes have very different characters. However, I don't think we are paying enough attention to the new Pope.

You don't agree that he's too quiet?

I don't think so. I think that what he says should be better publicised, even by the Catholic media. They are not doing enough to get his message through. We now await his first encyclical. Let's hope that people read it.

How would you describe your successor in character?

He has a very good grounding in theological and canonical matters and is a reliable person. He is not a man of many words, certainly no superfluous ones - which is the opposite of me because people have often said that I am too outspoken. In the year he spent as a parish priest of Kercem I heard a lot of praise in his regard; his prudence, the respect for him among priests and the dialogue he had with those around him. I think he will continue to build on what has been established over the years, though obviously he will change certain things. He believes in collegiality, consults people, and is able to delegate work.

Is it time to make big changes in the diocese?

First, he has to try and resolve the problems that I failed to resolve myself.

Big problems?

Some are big and some are small. But there are some pending.

Like what?

For example, not all priests in Gozo have an adequate wage. Another problem is striking a balance between money spent on works of art and money used for social purposes. Certain parishioners have their minds set on artful pursuits like music, paintings and church decorations - which are important in themselves - but there has to be a balance. There has to be an emphasis on education to develop a conscience in helping the poor; these things are a challenge and are also capable of creating certain controversy.

What's the best piece of advice you can give him?

Decisions cannot be made rashly and you cannot always rely on the information people give you. There have been times when I have acted on information I thought was correct only to learn later that it wasn't... On the other hand, one cannot unduly put off certain decisions from one day to the next because nothing will ever get done. I wish I had abided by these principles but I did not always manage to strike the right balance between making a decision quickly and taking time to reflect.

Is he going to find a lot of problematic priests?

Not a lot. I have said many times that the large majority of priests in Gozo are good people who want to work and pray. Those who are abroad are exemplary.

The Bishop in Gozo has been replaced. Is it now time for the Archbishop of Malta to be replaced as well?

I think that's a question you should put to the people responsible for that decision.

To Mgr Mercieca?

Or to someone that is responsible for that change in Malta. But I should add that I became a bishop before him so it is only to be expected that I insisted on being replaced before him.