It is three years since Pope John Paul II - the Great - died; 88 since he was baptised; almost 30 years since that day in October when 'God's athlete' appeared for the first time on the balcony of St Peter's Square; since millions of his countrymen watched the first Mass in history to be shown on Polish state television; since he chose for the opening words of his inaugural homily, Peter's declaration, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"; since a son of Poland became, so he told the crowd, "Yes, a Roman" now.
The new Roman won the hearts and minds of millions who heard him say: "Be not afraid. Open wide the doors of Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of states, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilisation and development." And again, "Be not afraid. Christ knows 'what is in man'. He alone knows it."
And to his countrymen "...Everything I could say would fade into insignificance compared with what my heart feels, and your hearts feel, at this moment. So let us leave words aside. Let there remain just great silence before God, the silence that becomes prayer. I ask you: be with me at Jasna Gora and everywhere..."
The following year, Pope John Paul went on his first visit to Poland - Solidarnosc was born. The first seismic tremors were felt in the edifice of communism. That year, too, he published his encyclical Redemptor Hominis, the first of many that would punctuate his papacy - Dives in misericordia (1980), Dominum et vivificantem (1986), the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit, and in 1987, with awesome logic, Redemptoris mater followed by Mulieris dignitatem; Laborem exercens in 1981; Sollicitudo rei socialis in 1987, Redemptoris missio in 1990 and, a year later, Centesimus annis.
In 1993 he wrote Veritatis splendor, in 1995, Evangelium vitae, his magnificent defence of the culture of life in a moral environment fouled by, steeped in, the culture of death. And Fides et ratio, in 1998, the relationship between faith and reason - "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth".
He held up a mirror to the modern world
Like jewels in the crown of his papacy there were, of course, those World Youth Days which started off with an invitation to young people to celebrate Palm Sunday in Rome with him in 1985. And they came! It was then that the decision to hold a biennial World Youth Day was taken, the first in Buenos Aires in 1987 and then on to Santiago de Compostela, Czestochowa, Denver, Manila, to Paris in 1997 and Rome for Jubilee Year in 2000. Canada in 2002... where, abiding memory, a young man rushed on to the stage and flung his arms around the Pope.
It was Pope John Paul's remarkable gift that he did not pander to the millions of young people who met him at these events. He acknowledged their intrinsic dignity and challenged them. "Do not be afraid of the love that places clear demands on people". Do not "allow this treasure (experience of love) to be taken away from you". If this means that you run against the culture of the day, be countercultural.
Meanwhile, governments and reproductive health carers are encouraging young people to do what they will, if they must; only, wear a condom and, hey, if you get caught out, even with that allegedly fail-safe condom, abort; no problem; and The Lancet editorially calling for compulsory jabs for 11- and 12-year-old girls against sexually transmitted disease.
Pope John Paul strode the world like a colossus as no other in history had done. And then, for such is the process of life, his final, heroic days; a man wasted by illness, a living testimony of courage. No wonder that during his final agony, tears streamed down the faces of young and old alike, not only on the square of St Peter but in homes all over the world where people watched until that cruel moment when the light in his bedroom was switched off, and continued to watch and pray long after that.
The late and ex-Jesuit Peter Hebblethwaite has been quoted to have said that, 'Nothing (Pope John Paul) has done will outlast him. Not the Catechism, not Veritatis Splendor, nor the document on the ordination of women... The new man will put aside everything John Paul has done and start... again'. It was a strange judgment to make but vintage Hebblethwaite.
William Oddie was surely nearer the mark when he wrote: "The older and more frail he becomes, the more his courage shines out, and the nearer his papal service comes to being a kind of living martyrdom. The word 'indomitable' comes to mind... it will be for the Church to declare if this has been the life of one of her saints; but certainly, by any human measure current among his contemporaries, his qualities have amounted to greatness of the highest order'.
Out they pop
It is now clear: unless the Labour party wishes to enter into suicide mode, that the days of Jason Micallef are numbered, not as clear who will take his place. Contenders for his post, for the leadership and the deputy leaderships of the Labour party are crawling all over the place. Delegates, or delegates and tesserati if George Abela has his way, are spoilt for choice. Or are they?
It is now apparent that the majority of those bidding for the top job are much of a muchness. The only one who escapes that judgment is Abela, who stands head and shoulders above his rivals not least because he is the only one who demonstrated a quality of independence as far back as 1998 that none of the others even began to touch. Whether this will stand him in good stead is another matter. A man's good points are another's poison.
Against him stand the machineries of the party and the General Workers' Union, whose 'resident' lawyer he once was and with many of whose members he has established a name for probity and courage. It is for this reason, among others, that Abela wishes to see a new system of voting introduced, one that will extend beyond the delegates and embrace the tesserati.
Another is that the choice of a leader under his chosen system will reflect a more democratic outcome. Any such anointed leader will start off with the blessing of a large and more representative swathe of the party faithful and may, indeed, include those who have lost faith in a party that, apart from a brief interlude, has not governed for 20 years; for 12 years, legitimately, in the past 46. By calling for such an election, Abela has grabbed the high ground. If any of his rivals wish to join him there he, or she, has no option but to voice agreement with his demand for a wider poll.
Assuming as the party should, but does not to any great extent, that the choice of its leader is one that goes well beyond the narrow diktat of party politics, pace Norman Hamilton, it is clear that the man who will replace Alfred Sant needs to be seen as simpatico (which is not the same thing as a smiler - not remotely the same thing) by the rest of the country.
Tony Blair, you may recall, wrested the government from the Tories not because he smiled, although God knows he did a lot of that, but because he came over with the British public as a man of substance with a new image distinct from that projected by Harold Wilson, James Callaghan and Neil Kinnock, never mind John Major's. He convinced the British electorate that New Labour really was New. Incidentally, that smiles are not enough was borne out by the fact that come 2006/2007 the sight of Tony Blair smiling had members of the British public reach for their gag-bags.
Digging themselves into the ground
Simpatico in the political sense means being attractive as a person to people who do not see eye to eye with you; it means an ability to win people over by charm rather than by cajolery; it means a political integrity that holds firm on essentials and is not unduly fettered by detail; it means, unlike what that egregious film Love Story would have us believe to the contrary, that politics, like love, sometimes means having to say sorry (like Gonzi; unlike Sant). Are any of the contenders, apart from Abela, sincerely capable of this? More to the point, can they be believed if they do make such a confession?
For a start, and to demonstrate their independence of mind, they can get together and challenge the party's Vigilance and Disciplinary and Appeals Board, demand it withdraws the directive to disallow non-delegates to run for the leadership and tell the board what it can do with its instruction to gag those who submit their nomination. They can also turn on the internal electoral commission and ask it whether it understands the meaning of autonomy.
No self-respecting, potential leader of the party should accept for a moment his right to free speech to be so summarily culled. Yet Falzon has already done so; so has Muscat. You would have thought that a young contender would have swiftly abhorred the decision and avoided such a politically wet remark that "(he) trust(s) that each and every one of the candidates wants the best for the party". This was as bad as Falzon saying he was prepared to go along with "any decision the party takes".
Oh, dear. The party is always right. Quite apart from the fact that it was not the party speaking but an element of the party machinery, this is precisely what the electorate does not wish to hear. The electorate expects men to stand up to the machinery that has landed the party in trouble over and over again. It expects of the party's internal election commission the courage to tell the Vigilance etc. Board to cast its watchfulness elsewhere.
The one contender, whose presence is overpowering even though he has not formally thrown his hat into the ring, who has publicly challenged the gag, muzzle and delegate-contender directive, is Abela. The delegate-only bit is rich by any wealthy standard. After all, when he was part of Sant's Winning Team - the only time, incidentally, that Sant did win an election - he was elected deputy leader without being a delegate. So the electorate is asking, what's all this jiggery-pokery? The gag and the delegate-only nonsense are aimed at him, and him alone. Any future leader of the party should abhor this.