We are in safe hands

The Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted as saying during an interview: "Leadership is, to me, a very, very murky and complicated concept..." Well, yes, of course it can be, but what is the alternative to leadership if you are raised to a position where you are expected to exercise it? Strange, I thought, that Dr Williams should come up with that one.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph last Wednesday, Alice Thompson thought so, too, and wondered why the Archbishop should have devoted so much time in his Easter sermon on Dan Brown's "blockbuster novel (which is) about as true to Christian beliefs as Ian Fleming's James Bond is to MI6". Quite.

Why the stretched-beyond-belief Da Vinci Code when Canterbury could have pronounced on matters of substance, as Benedict XVI did in his first Urbi et Orbi Easter message since he became Pope a year ago? It was a message that confirmed a willingness to engage with the powers of this world even as he celebrated an event demonstrably connected with the next. That willingness derives from his understanding that the Church is in the world, its sacred mission affected by a secularised world that is challenging the Church ever more frontally, a world to which he is determined "to proclaim the living presence of Christ"; in short to evangelise.

He is deeply conscious, as he already was in the early Nineties, that the Catholic Church faces "one of the most profound crises in (its) history... comparable to the crisis of Gnosticism in the second and third centuries, comparable to the crisis of the Protestant Reformation, that seems clear". It has become his task and his cross to lead believers through this crisis. He sees no better way to achieve this march through the desert than to preach the living Christ and to re-engage with Scripture, Augustine's "bottomless well" of meaning, and a revitalised liturgy.

Crisis or no crisis, he sees the Church as alive "because", as he expressed himself in his first homily, "Christ is alive, because he is truly risen". It is this unshakable faith in Christ alive, the risen Christ whom he hears calling him as he once called Peter to "feed my sheep", that will see him through. Unshakeable and robust but not arrogant; in the next breath he is asking his "dear friends": "Pray for me that I may not flee for fear of the wolves".

Compare and contrast with the Archbishop of York who was asked by The Spectator, along with some 30 other personalities, whether he believed Christ had risen from the dead?

His assistant: "The Archbishop is away today, I don't know if I'll see him at all today. Maybe not tomorrow either. I understand that you've got a statement from the Bishop of Oxford. I don't know what he said, but I'm sure he speaks for all of us. Goodbye."

And with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

His assistant on Thursday: "He's very busy but I'll see what I can do."

On Friday: "I'm afraid we don't take part in compare and contrast surveys."

The Spectator: "But we're not comparing and contrasting anything. Please at least ask him."

On Monday: The Spectator: "Any luck with the Archbishop?"

Assistant: "Archbishop Rowan said to put him firmly in the 'yes' camp. What were the follow-up questions?"

The Spectator: "No follow-up questions. Just the one about the Resurrection."

On Tuesday. Another assistant: "I'm afraid there won't be a (further) quote from the Archbishop. Sorry to let you know so close to the deadline."

Even if one grants, which one need not, that leadership is murky and complicated, it is equally true that it best operates from a basis of conviction, certainly on matters of fundamental belief.

How else, otherwise, can ecumenism move forward at all?

Perhaps Pope Benedict will provide the leadership (there is no other) necessary by requiring clarification on every point where divergence exists to see what convergence "towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers" is possible. He has made that reconstitution his "primary commitment", "his ambition", "his compelling duty", at the same time aware that "expressions of good feelings are not enough" and of the urgent need for the "purification of memory".

It may be the first big surprise of his papacy, of his 'foreign policy', that he will travel to Moscow, a city to which Pope John Paul failed to receive an invitation. There he will meet with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who acknowledged, early in Benedict's papacy: "The entire Christian world, including the Orthodox one, respects him. Without doubt theological differences exist (between Catholics and Orthodox). But as far as his views on modern society, secularisation and religious relativism are concerned, our points of view are very similar."

Perhaps this prompted Pope Benedict almost a year ago, on the day the Orthodox celebrate their Easter, May 1, to reach out from St Peter's Square: "From my heart, I hope that the celebration of Easter will be for them a choral prayer of faith and praise to He who is our common Lord, and who calls us to pursue decisively the path towards full communion."

We are in safe hands.

'Scurrilous', 'vile' - anything else?

It will not make a blind bit of sense if you read this before you go to the correspondence columns there to read a hysterical reaction from Dr Mario Spiteri on the issue of sexual responsibility.

Dr Spiteri represents the Ministry of Health on matters of health promotion. He has a battery of letters after his name and holds his position by virtue of the Minister of Health. He is, in short, an expert from whom, however, non-experts must never shy, especially when they are asked as this columnist was: "What are Roamer's credentials as a self-appointed expert on sexual health matters?"

A good question had I claimed to be an expert on matters of sexual health. A limp and pompous one since I had not done so. Dr Spiteri is so keen on promoting sexual health he missed entirely the thrust of my argument last Sunday. This ran, if readers will bear with a nursery rhyme standard of explanation, along these lines.

The Diocesan Youth Council (DYC/KDZ), together with the Cana Movement and Dar Guzeppa Debono (my apologies to the latter two for not including them in last Sunday's acknowledgements) is running a campaign on the issue of sexual responsibility. Its theme is "Towards a More Beautiful Sexual Life".

To my mind this is an eminently positive campaign that should attract young people to a concept directly contrary to that promoted by the media, press, television, the film and music industry and the harrowing role models that emerge from these big businesses. It is a positive and challenging campaign running in the teeth of a culture that does not recognise what a beautiful (meaningful) sexual life is, and the possibility of which it does not even begin to acknowledge.

A more beautiful sexual life envisages a jealous protection of an individual's sexual integrity. This is seen by DYC as the cornerstone of sexual health and, let us not be coy, happiness. It calls for a form of control in preference to the debasement of sexual currency.

Dr Spiteri, who is the proud father of two beautiful daughters, is of the belief that it is impossible to expect abstinence before marriage. He is entitled to his belief but is he entitled to pour scorn on the far nobler message behind the DYC campaign? In the position he holds, I would have thought not.

That is why I found his attitude on that television programme disgraceful, still do, and I regard the heading of his letter - "Why the abstinence model fails" - arrogantly dismissive; all the more so because he produces no argument to justify the failure he so urgently seems to wish on that model. And if this is indeed what he wishes the attitude of society to be, or indeed sees it as being, then I once more call on the support of Dr Dominian, who is eminently suited to discuss sexual health matters:

"If society takes the view that restraint is not possible and indeed bombards the young person with titillation and condoms, then clearly society is of no assistance whatsoever on sexual control." In this context, you may reasonably include Dr Spiteri, who represents the Ministry of Health and holds his position by virtue of that Ministry's Minister, as part of that society.

But he is the expert and, ergo, he must be right, or so he would have us believe. This non-expert in sexual health disagrees with him and believes there is more to sexual health, except in its narrowest sense, than knowledge provided by a battery of letters after one's name. There is an attitude. DYC's is all the more impressive for promoting sexuality in terms of integrity and the respect this assumes should be built for the body of the other person as a whole person and not as a sex object, a conquest by instant gratification.

Dr Spiteri is free to call "scurrilous" (abusive, coarse, defamatory, foul, gross, indecent, scabrous, obscene, scandalous, vulgar) what he calls my "attack... (on the stand Dr Spiteri took during the TV discussion)..." as he is free to be silly with his indignant reaction. As to the easy way he trots out the appellation "vile" (another accusation; see his para. 2) his hysterical way with words ("libellous accusations will not be tolerated") make him somewhat unfit for a serious discussion, notwithstanding all those postgraduate qualifications.

I understand he, or somebody from his department, has since appeared on some 'spot' or other on television in which the response of Church schools to a WHO questionnaire containing 76 questions sent to secondary school students (aged 14 to 16) was criticised. This asked them to jot down, among other information, their sexual experiences, whether they had ever had sexual intercourse, what methods they used to prevent pregnancy and whether a condom was used the last time they had sexual intercourse.

It was left to the discretion of heads of schools whether the questionnaire was passed on to students. I understand there were heads from state schools who did not do so. A number of parents who send their children to Church schools did complain (two Church schools, I am told, but have been unable to verify, passed on the questionnaires to their students. Dr Spiteri was reported as saying that "a number of Church schools had already asked their pupils to fill in the questionnaire"). Either way, the Church authorities intervened and prevented the survey from being conducted in the remainder of their schools.

Questions rise effortlessly to the surface. Have parents no right to be informed beforehand on matters such as these in a country where the Education Minister wishes to see parents getting more and more involved in their children's' education? Have they no discretionary rights even?

A senior health promotion officer was quoted in yesterday's Times as saying: "There is nothing wrong with these questions, and our children can handle them like those in other countries". So that's all right, then.

I wonder how scurrilous and vile all this has been?  

Those fumes again

As winter winds and spring breezes come to their last gasp and sultry, airless summer weather sets in, one becomes more aware of cars and trucks, buses and vans spraying us with a largesse of exhaust fumes. The campaign to bring these sprayers to book started off well enough but I suppose most of us have forgotten the number we should call whenever a fumes-belcher passes by. Perhaps the health promotion department will remind us.

Buses and heavy duty trucks are notoriously sulphurous but so are many family cars. They roam our streets unbooked. Now, I read, wardens are being given powers to test car emissions with some EU gadget.

This is great stuff but how likely is it to work when the obvious booking method employed against drivers whose cars visibly spout considerable volumes of carcinogenic emissions has tended to fail? Shouldn't we rid Malta of the devil we see before we take up arms against unseen vapours?